8.1 Introduction
The agri-food sector is one of the most critical economic sectors globally, contributing significantly to employment, trade, and GDP growth (Worldbank, 2022). However, it is also responsible for a considerable share of greenhouse gas emissions, causing a substantial environmental impact (Crippa et al., 2021). With resources becoming increasingly scarce, there is an urgent need to transform the food system and create more sustainable ways of producing and consuming food. Furthermore, as the world’s population continues to grow, the demand for food will only increase, exacerbating the need for change (United Nations Environment Programme, 2022). Creating major shifts in the food system that align with the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; UN, 2023) and the Paris Agreement1 is a highly complex challenge that requires thoughtful action. With that in mind, the concept of sustainability, by definition, encompasses the triple bottom line of ecological, societal, and economic dimensions, which can lead to significant trade-offs (Purvis, 2019). In the context of the food system, the complexity of the interconnected factors makes it difficult to predict the consequences of changes made in one domain on another domain. From a citizen perspective, the ethical considerations of these trade-offs are becoming increasingly important. As people become more aware of the impacts of food production and consumption on the environment, society, and the economy, they are beginning to demand more transparency and accountability from food producers and retailers. Ultimately, finding a balance between the three dimensions of sustainability and ensuring that ethical considerations are taken into account is crucial for creating a more sustainable and equitable food system.
environmental impact
Sustainable decision making and ethics are closely linked because both concepts are concerned about how individual actions and choices have impacts on the environment, society and future generations. On the one hand, ethical decision making involves thinking about how decisions impact others, how citizens should treat others fairly, and how they can act in a way that is consistent with their values and beliefs. Sustainable decision making, on the other hand, involves taking actions that are economically, socially, and environmentally responsible and that do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The acceptance of new food technology is often closely linked to ethical considerations. Food technologies can raise ethical concerns related to human health, animal welfare, and the environment, which can impact an individual buyer’s attitudes towards these products (Frewer et al., 2011). For example, individuals may be hesitant to adopt new plant-based protein products if they perceive them to be highly processed or unnatural, or if they are unsure about the safety or nutritional value of these products (Siegrist and Hartmann, 2020). Similarly, new technologies such as cultivated meat or genetic engineering may raise concerns about animal welfare, environmental impact, or the potential long-term effects on human health.
ethical decision making
sustainable decision making
In order to overcome these concerns and increase acceptance, food technology designers need to consider the ethical implications of their products and develop transparent communication strategies that address them. To create a more inclusive and sustainable food system, it is crucial to involve citizens in the process of developing and implementing new technologies for food production. Crowdsourced ethics can play a meaningful role in designing food technology that supports the transition towards sustainable food production. By involving a diverse range of stakeholders, including citizens, scientists, and policymakers, in the design process, it is possible to ensure that emerging food technologies align with societal values and expectations. Crowdsourcing can help to identify and address ethical concerns, such as the impact of new technologies on the environment, animal welfare, and human health. It can also help to foster greater trust and transparency in the food system, which is essential for citizens’ confidence and support. By leveraging the collective wisdom of a broad range of stakeholders, crowdsourced ethics can enable the food sector and policymakers to design more sustainable and socially responsible food technologies that are more likely to be accepted and adopted by society. Ultimately, this can accelerate the transition towards a more sustainable and equitable food system that meets the needs of present and future generations.
crowdsourced ethics
8.2 Food ethics and technology
8.2.1 Applied food ethics
The world is currently facing several challenges in the food system, including food insecurity, environmental degradation, and public health concerns. The conventional food production and consumption system has contributed significantly to these challenges by relying heavily on animal-based products, monoculture farming, excessive use of chemicals, and even destroying or at least deteriorating natural processes that are essential for our food (e.g. pollination and a healthy soil). As the global population grows, and climate change accelerates, there is an urgent need for a transition towards a sustainable food system. The transition requires a significant shift in our dietary patterns and the way we produce food. One of the key solutions to this problem is leveraging technology to produce sustainable and nutritious food. The global food tech market was worth $220.32 billion in 2019, according to Emergen Research (2022), and is estimated to grow to $342.52 billion by 2027. Food tech is increasing food production to help reduce the rate of hunger and feed the world. Agriculture is becoming more automated with the use of digital and advanced technology to produce food and raw materials with smart farming. I nnovative technologies offer promising alternatives to traditional animal-based protein sources. All these technologies have the potential to reduce the environmental footprint of food production, enhance food security, and improve public health outcomes. Here are some examples:
-
Genetically modified organisms. GM technology modifies a plant’s genes to help it become disease resistant and grow in areas not favourable for production. GM technology is used in large crops such as rice, wheat and corn.
-
Meat industry technology. AI is effective in poultry production where it helps detect health issues with birds based on the sounds they make. AI robots can work at poultry farms to collect eggs or assist with slaughter.
-
Crop monitoring. Along with the use of drones, AI can detect pests and diseases in crops. Digital apps – such as AgroPestAlert, Farm Scout Pro and IPM Toolkit – can help detect pest infestation and changing soil conditions to prevent large losses.
-
3D food printer. Food printers can create food – such as pizzas, snacks and candy – at a faster pace. AI helps design the layers and structure of the food by placing one ingredient at a time. This could eliminate waste, as leftover ingredients can be reused.
-
Plant-based. Plant-based foods are made from ingredients such as peas and grains and are designed to mimic the taste and texture of meat, dairy, or other animal products.
-
Insects: Insects are a source of protein, functioning as an alternative to traditional livestock farming, as insects require less land, water, and feed to produce the same amount of protein. In Europe crickets, mealworms and grasshoppers have been allowed in food since February 2023 (EFSA, 2023).
-
Cultivated: Cultivated meat, also known as cultured meat, is produced by growing animal cells in a laboratory. It is designed to mimic the taste and texture of traditional meat. It belongs to the group of novel foods and has not yet received EU approval (EFSA, 2023).
-
Fermented proteins: Fermentation is a process in which microorganisms break down sugars to create milk-like substances that are suitable for use as dairy alternatives in a variety of food products.
food transition
innovative technologies
The design process of food technology development doesn’t usually include the voice and participation of citizens, leading to a disconnect between food producers and society. This lack of citizen involvement results in products that do not fully meet their needs, preferences, and expectations. As a result, food products may be less appealing, which may result in a lack of acceptance of new developments in the food industry. The urgent need for sustainable food, whose success depends on the willingness of individuals to change their purchasing and eating behaviour, needs citizen participation. When it comes to the ethical and moral implications of food technologies, there are several important considerations to keep in mind. One of the key concerns is the potential impact of these technologies on human health and well-being. For example, some food technologies may be associated with negative health outcomes, such as increased risk of obesity, heart disease, or other chronic conditions. It is therefore important to carefully evaluate the safety and efficacy of any new food technologies before they are introduced to the market. Another ethical concern relates to the environmental impact of food technologies. Some food production methods may be associated with negative environmental externalities such as pollution, deforestation, or habitat destruction. It is important to consider the sustainability of any new food technologies and to ensure that they are aligned with broader efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change and protect biodiversity. Finally, there may be ethical implications related to the social and economic impacts of food technologies. For example, some technologies may contribute to the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few large food companies, while others may have negative implications for farmers or other stakeholders in the food supply chain. It is important to consider these potential impacts and to ensure that food technologies are developed in ways that are equitable and inclusive. Overall, the ethical and moral implications of food technologies are complex and multifaceted. It is important to carefully consider these implications when developing and promoting new food technologies, and to engage in ongoing dialogue and debate around these issues with all stakeholders involved in the food system.
8.2.2 Theoretical approaches in food ethics and innovation
Food ethics can be considered from a descriptive and a normative ethics perspective. In descriptive ethics, human moral behaviour is analysed and explained and answers the question of how individuals or organizations ‘do’ ethics. In normative ethics, we answer the question of how individuals or organizations ‘should do’ ethics. Both approaches have their own methods and frameworks. In descriptive ethics, moral decision making by individuals is usually centred around various stages. The most commonly used model is proposed by James Rest (1986). He introduces four steps we typically go through before taking moral action: 1) recognizing the moral issue; 2) making a moral judgement; 3) establishing moral intent; and 4) moral acting. In other words: an individual first becomes aware of a moral problem; then evaluates the problem by reaching a moral conclusion; after that the actor becomes determined to act according to that conclusion; and finally behaves by implementing the moral decision itself (Crane et al., 2019: 139–140). In descriptive ethics we usually assume that these four steps are of a relativist nature, meaning that each individual, depending on various factors, will go through these steps differently. The factors that influence the way individuals go through these stages are subgrouped in different ways. The most commonly used distinction is between individual, situational and issue-contingent factors (Jones, 1990; Craft,2013; Schwartz, 2016). Individual factors are inherent to the individual that goes through the stages of moral decision making. These are typically demographics (gender, age, family situation, profession), but also relate to moral capacity (e.g. personality traits and life experience). Situational factors are typically organizational factors that influence the individual that operates with or within this organization. These are usually the formal and informal systems that altogether shape the moral infrastructure of an organization. These could be codes of conduct, ethical reporting guidelines and bonus rules (formal) but also work climate, shared traditions, or commonly shared company culture (informal). To conclude, there are issue-related factors. These relate to the characteristics of the moral issue that presents itself: the magnitude of the consequences, level of social consensus, probability of the effect, temporal immediacy, proximity, and the concentration of the effects.
descriptive ethics
When individuals are confronted with a food-related moral dilemma, the four stages of moral decision making, as well as the three influencing factors, offer an analytical structure to explore the moral viewpoints of citizens. When we consider normative food ethics, normativity is typically applied on two main themes: What to eat and what not to eat? And the environmental/societal consequences of food production. In any of these cases we see a complex interplay of values, which includes consumer autonomy, animal welfare, transparency, social justice (equality), health (food safety) and environmental prosperity. A normative framework that analyses the interplay of these values per moral dilemma is the food ethics matrix, proposed by the Food Ethics Council (www.foodethicscouncil.org), situated in the UK. Using this matrix results in an overview of core values per stakeholder in a given food-related moral issue. An ethical issue is analysed according to the values of food producers, food marketers, consumers and society members in the context of well-being, autonomy and fairness (Mepham, 2000, 2010, 2013). Well-being loosely represents a utilitarianism approach and is results-driven; autonomy refers to Kant’s categorical imperative; and fairness is an interpretation of the principle of equality. This way, values of various stakeholders can be mapped in light of different approaches in normative ethics and can serve as input for ethical decision-making. In technology, ethical considerations are increasingly important. Especially the value sensitive (Friedman and Hendry, 2019) or moral design (Wernaart, 2022) of new technology is high on the agenda. The main challenge here is to align the values of designers, that of technology in itself, and that of society (Van de Poel, 2015). The three can have differences that lead to moral challenges. One element that is often overlooked here is that technology in itself is never ethically neutral and can have a moral charge that is different from its designers or users. Good examples are various innovations in agriculture that help optimize food production with the aim of ending hunger, while some of these innovations appear to have a very negative (and sometimes unforeseen) effect on the environment. Perhaps the most notable example is the famous Haber/Bosch process, where the intended values are very far away from the actual, realized values in society. When we focus on private undertakings, ethics plays a role in the managerial and organizational aspects of running a business. This is mostly referred to as ‘business ethics’ although different terms are used as well, such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), or sustainable entrepreneurship. In this chapter, we will stick to the words business ethics. In this field, we have observed that since the ’60s there has been a shift from a shareholder to a stakeholder approach, and later a network approach (Freeman, 2010; Brand and Blok, 2019). In short this means that not only the norms and values (and interest) of shareholders are considered in ethical decision making within a private organization, but also those who are affected by or can affect the interest of the business. The systematic mapping of ethical considerations of the network surrounding a business can help in taking better decisions that are accepted and desired by the network the business operates in. The above theories are well-known approaches in both descriptive and normative ethics, with selective applications in food innovation and technology. What is so far lacking in academia and applied sciences is a comprehensive analysis that bridges the various approaches and methods in the field of food tech innovation, and that leads to a useful applied method to guide ethical decision-making in food technology design.
normative ethics
food ethics matrix
business ethics
8.3 Citizens or consumers?
Numerous studies have investigated the ways in which food marketing strategies, such as labelling, advertising, and packaging, can influence individuals’ perceptions of sustainable food and shape their purchasing behaviour (Grunert et al., 2014; Julia and Hercberg, 2017; Vanclay et al., 2011). Presenting health and environmental information on food products during the purchasing process could assist individuals in making purchasing decisions that are both healthier and more sustainable (Anastasiou, Miller, and Dickinson, 2019; Brown, Harris, Potter, and Knai, 2020; Macdiarmid, Cerroni, Kalentakis, and Reynolds, 2020). However, the drivers and motivation of food consumers behind their willingness to change their eating habits are also linked to normative and ethical considerations (Franzo and Mc Laren, 2020). The success of new food technology depends on the willingness to change purchasing habits and eating behaviour. Therefore, it is important to include citizens’ perspectives in the design process; they need to be co-designers. In this context, the attitude-behavioural intention gap is often spoken about (Vermeir and Verbeke, 2006), whereby consumers want to do something about the environment, or animal welfare, but they do not act accordingly. This is also known as the citizen-consumer paradox. However, other research reasons that there is no distinct citizen or consumer, and that they are much more interlinked (Brom et al., 2006; de Bakker and Dagevos, 2012). People buy their food for reasons of both price and enjoyment, as well as principles and ideals, which could be called citizen-inspired consumption behaviour (de Bakker and Dagevos, 2012). In this chapter we use the term ‘citizen’, bearing in mind that each citizen is (almost) per definition a food consumer, and taking into consideration the wide moral concerns of many individuals that play a prominent role in the public debate around food innovation. On top of that, it is worth noting that, to date, approaching the required food transition from the perspective of consumer research (or consumer behaviour), as discussed in this section, has not yielded the expected results. Therefore, we will shift the focus of attention from consumer perspectives to citizens’ perspectives, at the same time recognizing there is a grey area between them, especially as concerns food consumption.
attitude- behavioural intention gap
8.4 A moral data city hunt on food technology: towards an action-based research agenda
The above leads to the following research question: How can we enable the food sector and policymakers with crowdsourced ethics in food technology design to support the transition to a more sustainable food system?
crowdsourced ethics
To achieve this, we propose to use a method of crowdsourced ethics: t he moral data city hunt method. By gathering opinions from a diverse group of people, we aim to gain a deeper understanding of the values and principles that inform ethical decision making. Our approach involves exploring not only the ethical judgements made by individuals but also the underlying values that drive those decisions. We are interested in examining how different ethical considerations are weighted and prioritized by individuals, and how this varies across different groups and contexts. Through this research, we aim to identify areas where public concerns or values may conflict with industry or regulatory priorities, and to develop strategies for addressing these tensions. Ultimately, we believe that a better understanding of ethical decision making in new food technologies will be essential for ensuring that these technologies are developed and implemented in ways that are consistent with public values and ethical principles.
In previous research, we have introduced the ‘moral data city hunt method’ in applied studies on responsible drones or a city mobility app (van Veen and Wernaart, 2022; Wernaart et al., 2023). The moral data city hunt method is a way to solicit citizen input, as it not only utilizes participatory and visual research methods but also encompasses a linguistic approach. By combining participatory, visual and linguistic approaches, complex topics are illustrated and discussed in an accessible way with those whom it eventually concerns: the citizens (Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995; Mitchell et al., 2017; Vaughn and Jacquez, 2020). One example of a visual research method to be incorporated is photo-elicitation, where images are used to guide a research experiment. One of the many advantages is that visual images are more likely to trigger reflection, association, feelings, emotions, memories and information than a stand-alone verbal conversation (Collier and Collier, 1986; Glaw et al., 2017; Harper, 2002). The results of the moral data city hunt give a sense of what citizens consider important, but also of the values that underlie them, and how these values relate to one another. This can help in the design process by ‘front-loading ethics’ as it is called in Value Sensitive Design (van den Hoven 2007). Since the translation of values into design requirements is context-dependent (van der Poel, 2013), there is a need for a solution where companies and policymakers can themselves incorporate the citizens voice into their design process.
The moral data city hunt method c entres on two research approaches:
-
We use augmented utilitarianism (descriptive ethics) (Aliman and Kester, 2022). Citizens interact with prototypes of future technology and record their preferences in moral programming, in a moral (food) lab.
-
We ask citizens what they think of this moral programming of the prototype and use a Personal Value Dictionary (based on Ponizovskiy et al., 2020) to analyse their wording.
moral data city hunt method
A ‘Moral Food Lab’ allows for a structured and participatory approach to exploring ethical issues in the development of food technologies and consists of five phases: interviews, design, interaction, analysis, and translation. In the Interviews phase, we engage with stakeholders and experts in the field to gather insights and perspectives on the ethical dimensions of food technologies. This helps to inform the subsequent phases of the process. In the design phase, the insights gathered from the Interviews can be used to design a set of ethical scenarios related to food technologies. These scenarios are incorporated in a moral lab, and are designed to stimulate ethical reflection and deliberation among citizens. In the Interaction phase, we stimulate large-scale citizen participation in these moral labs. This phase provides an opportunity for citizens to participate in the ethical debate surrounding food technologies and to contribute to the development of ethical guidelines and principles.
Moral Food Lab
In the second part of the moral data city hunt method, we will perform a linguistic analysis of the reaction of the participants based on the linguistic analysis of Ponizovskiy et al. (2020). The reaction is analysed based on a Dutch or English library of words that are connected to the 10 values of Schwartz based on his Theory of basic values (Schwartz, 2012). The approach assumes that the language people speak is a behavioural expression of their corresponding values (Ponizovskiy et al., 2020). This bottom-up approach has shown that people’s own words are a better way (Boyd, 2015) of capturing their day-to-day behaviours than traditional self-reporting questionnaires (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz 1994 and Gouveia, 2014).
linguistic analysis
Ultimately, the analysis is translated to design principles that can serve as input for further technology development, in alignment with the values of those whom it concerns: citizens.
8.5 The Graz experiment
How better to show people how the moral food lab works than to let them experience it? This is what we did at the STS conference in Graz, May 2023. Our experiment was composed of two main parts. First, we asked attendees of the conference to respond to three moral food dilemmas:
-
Would you rather kill 1 cow or 10,000 crickets?
-
Would you rather eat something that tastes good or something that is healthy?
-
Do you prefer cultural values and traditions or innovative adaptations in your food?
For each of these three questions people were asked to put a sticker on a line from left to right that corresponded to one of the scenarios. Second, after they had placed three stickers, we asked them about how they would see the future food system based on the three questions. This interview was recorded so that we could perform a linguistic analysis on the spoken texts.
For each person this resulted in three answers, quantified to a value between −100 and 100. Next to that the interview was analysed according to the Personal Value Dictionary of Ponizovskiy et al. (2020). This analysis resulted in a value profile of each person based on the words they used in the interview (see for an example, figure 8.1).
The value profiles of two people that participated in the moral food lab. Note that the size of the words is in no way correlated with the number of times the words were mentioned
8.5.1 Overall results
Overall, 18 people joined the moral food lab. This is a very small sample. The main goal was not to collect a large sample, but rather to test our research approach, and find out if our proposed methodological steps can lead to meaningful data output that can be used to guide food transition through technology in a way that is in alignment with citizen’s values.
We did not ask about demographics during the experiment; however, we suspect the group we interviewed was very heterogenic and does not represent our population as a whole. First, the value data was normalized between participants. Because of the nature of the questions and also the way we asked people to sketch their opinion of the future food system, some values were triggered more than others. To correct for that we subtracted the average value profile from each individual value profile, so that we could compare the relative value profiles to each other. We analysed the data based on the following two questions: 1. Did people who responded on one side of the moral dilemma have different value profiles from people who responded on the other side of the moral dilemma? 2. Do people with a value profile in which the dominant value has a personal focus respond differently to the three moral dilemmas than people with a dominant value that has a social focus?
Figure 8.2 shows the non-corrected percentages of values people spoke in. Notice that self-direction (SD) and universalism (UN) have the highest values, which could be explained by the nature of the subject or the way we addressed the question. Words that were typically used for self-direction (SD) were ‘decision’, ‘choice’, ‘think’ or ‘know’. Words that were typically used for universalism were ‘balance’, ‘culture’ or ‘environmental’. Question 1 only revealed minor differences between the different sides of the moral dilemmas. There was one minor difference in question B. People that were leaning more towards something that tastes good used more words related to stimulation (13.4%) than people who were leaning more towards something that is healthy (11.7%, p = 0.089).
For Question 2, people were placed in different groups based on the dominant value they spoke in. The groups were based on values with a personal focus on the one side: achievement, power, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction. And values with a social focus on the other side: security, conformity, tradition, universalism, benevolence. (Schwartz et al., 2012, Figure 8.2). For each group the average response to the question was calculated.
The average percentage of values people spoke in, grouped by how they responded to question B
The data was mostly too noisy to draw firm conclusions. The difference between the two groups for dilemma B were near significant (p = 0.08), where people with a dominant value with a personal focus leaned more towards healthy foods (10.11) and people with a dominant value with a social focus were rather neutral (1.22).
For future moral data city hunts we learned that it is important to be very neutral in asking the questions so that there is no value triggered in simply repeating the question or by doing what the interviewer asked (namely giving your opinion, triggering words like think, know and opinion). In general, we could say that the procedure we tested can lead to meaningful insights and sheds a unique light on how values are perceived to be at conflict amongst citizens. This can be translated to meaningful design-input in food innovation, and leads to a better value alignment between food businesses and society when taking the urgent necessary steps for food transition.
8.6 Future perspectives
We are witnessing a paradigm shift that goes beyond mere functionality and profit to redefine the nature of our food system. The moral design of food technology becomes a guiding principle based on ethical values and societal well-being. Sustainability becomes the cornerstone as innovative solutions prioritize the conservation of our planet and its resources. Social justice takes precedence as equal access to nutritious and culturally appropriate food becomes a fundamental right. Health and nutrition are prioritized through advances that promote well-being and address public health. Animal welfare is given due consideration to ensure humane treatment and minimize suffering throughout the production process. Transparency and citizen empowerment are paramount, promoting trust through clear information and comprehensive decision-making.
In this context of transformative change, we envision an idealistic scenario where proteins are extracted from the air we breathe, and meat is grown from nutrient solutions that nourish stem cells. This ground-breaking vision presents a tempting possibility – a world where global food production takes place within planetary boundaries. By integrating innovative technologies, we are able to print delicious, nutrient-rich food, reuse bio-waste streams, and reduce food waste to near zero. By using insect and seaweed-based foods in various innovative forms, we are witnessing an ambitious transformation that has the potential to reduce the incidence of diabetes and coronary heart disease. This idealistic progress is made possible by the mindful development of new technologies that aspire to align with the ethical requirements of society. In this ambitious future, our food will ideally become a harmonious blend of culinary pleasure, environmental and animal welfare considerations, and improved public health, while enabling food security for the whole planet.
However, it is crucial to recognize that the direction of this transformation should ultimately be the choice of individuals and communities. People should have the agency to determine how this shift towards a more sustainable, just, and conscientious food system unfolds. While technology and ethical considerations are significant drivers of change, citizens should play a central role in shaping this future. This empowerment allows for a more democratic and inclusive approach to food transformation, ensuring that the choices made align with the values and preferences of the diverse global population. In this way, we can collectively forge a path forward that reflects the collective will and aspirations of our society.
References
Aliman, N.-M., and Kester, L., 2022. 4. Moral programming. In Moral design and technology (pp. 63–80). Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-922-0_4.
Anastasiou, K., Miller, M., and Dickinson, K., 2019. The relationship between food label use and dietary intake in adults: a systematic review. Appetite, 138:280–291.
De Bakker, E., and Dagevos, H., 2012. Reducing meat consumption in today’s consumer society: questioning the citizen-consumer gap. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 25:877–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9345-z.
Boyd, R., Wilson, S., Pennebaker, J., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., and Mihalcea, R., 2021. Values in words: using language to evaluate and understand personal values. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 9:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v9i1.14589.
Brand, T. and Blok, V., 2019. Responsible innovation in business: a critical reflection on deliberative engagement as a central governance mechanism, Journal of responsible innovation, 6:4–24, DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2019.1575681.
Brom, F.W.A., Visak, T., and Meijboom, F., 2006. Food, citizens, and market: the quest for responsible consuming. Understanding consumers of food products, 610–623.
Brown, K.A., Harris, F., Potter, C., and Knai, C., 2020. The future of environmental sustainability labelling on food products. The lancet planetary health, 4(4), e137–e138.
Buskermolen, D.O., and Terken, J., 2012. Co-constructing stories: a participatory design technique to elicit in-depth user feedback and suggestions about design concepts. Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Exploratory Papers, Workshop Descriptions, Industry Cases, 2:33–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/2348144.2348156.
Collier, J., and Collier, M., 1986. Visual anthropology: photography as a research method. UNM Press, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Cornwall, A., and Jewkes, R., 1995. What is participatory research? Social science & medicine, 41:1667–1676. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-S.
Craft, J.L., 2013. A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011. Journal of business ethics 117: 221–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1518-9.
Crane, A., Matten, A., Glozer, and Spence, L., 2019. Business ethics (5th ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D. et al., 2021. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature food 2:198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9.
Emergen Research, 2022. Food tech market size, share, trends, by technology, by application, and by region – Forecast to 2027. Emergen Research. https://www.emergenresearch.com/press-release/global-food-tech-market.
Freeman, E., 2010. Stakeholder theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Frewer, L.J., Bergmann, K., Brennan, M., Lion, R., Meertens, R., Rowe, G., … and Vereijken, C.M.J.L., 2011. Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in food science & technology, 22:442–456.
Friedman, B. and Hendry, D.G., 2019. Value sensitive design, shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT press, Cambridge, UK.
Glaw, X., Inder, K., Kable, A., and Hazelton, M., 2017. Visual methodologies in qualitative research: autophotography and photo elicitation applied to mental health research. International journal of qualitative methods, 16:1. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917748215.
Gouveia, V.V., Milfont, T.L., and Guerra, V.M., 2014. Functional theory of human values: testing its content and structure hypotheses. Personality and individual differences, 60:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.012.
Harper, D., 2002. Talking about pictures: a case for photo elicitation. Visual studies, 17:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345.
Jerome, K., and Vanclay, J.S., 2010. Customer response to carbon labelling of groceries [J]. Journal of consumer policy, 6:52–55.
Jones, T.M., 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue- contingent model. Academy of management review 16: 366–395.
Julia, C., and Hercberg, S., 2017. Nutri-Score: evidence of the effectiveness of the French front-of-pack nutrition label. Ernahrungs Umschau, 64:181–187.
Macdiarmid, J.I., Cerroni, S., Kalentakis, D., and Reynolds, C., 2021. How important is healthiness, carbon footprint and meat content when purchasing a ready meal? Evidence from a non-hypothetical discrete choice experiment. Journal of cleaner production, 282:124510.
Mepham, B., 2000. A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: the ethical matrix. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics 12: 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009542714497.
Mepham, B., 2010. The ethical matrix as a tool in policy interventions: the obesity crisis. In: Gottwald, F.T., Ingensiep, H.W. and Meinhardt, M. (eds) Food ethics. Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp. 16–30.
Mepham, B., 2013. Ethical principles and the ethical matrix. In: Clark, J.P. and Ritson, C. (eds) Practical ethics for food professionals: ethics in research, education and the workplace. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Hoboken, NJ, USA, pp. 39–56.
Mitchell, C., Lange, N.D., and Moletsane, R., 2017. Participatory visual methodologies: social change, community and policy. SAGE.
Ponizovskiy, V., Ardag, M., Grigoryan, L., Boyd, R., Dobewall, H., and Holtz, P., 2020. Development and validation of the Personal Values Dictionary: a theory–driven tool for investigating references to basic human values in text. European journal of personality, 34:885–902. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2294.
Purvis, B., Mao, Y. and Robinson, D., 2019. Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustain Sci 14:681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5.
Rest, J.R., 1986. Moral development: advances in research and theory. Praeger, New York, NY, USA.
Rokeach, M., 1973. The nature of human values. Free Press, New York, NY, USA.
Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of social issues, 50: 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x.
Schwartz, S.H., 2012. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116.
Schwartz, M.S., 2016. Ethical decision-making theory: an integrated approach. Journal of business ethics 139: 755–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2886-8.
Siegrist, M., and Hartmann, C., 2020. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nature food, 1:343–350.
United Nations Environment Programme, 2022. Emissions gap report 2022: the closing window – climate crisis calls for rapid transformation of societies. Nairobi. https://www.unep.org/emissionsgap-report-2022.
Van der Meulen, B. and Wernaart, B., 2022. Food law and regulatory affairs. In: Wernaart, B. and Van der Meulen, B. Applied food science. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands. pp. 21–43. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-933-6_2op.
Vaughn, L.M., and Jacquez, F., 2020. Participatory research methods – choice points in the research process. Journal of participatory research methods, 1. https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.13244.
Van de Poel, I., 2015. Values in engineering and technology. In: Gonzalez, W.J. (ed.) New perspectives on technology, values, and ethics. Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science, Volume 315, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 29–46.
Van den Hoven, J., 2007. ICT and value sensitive design. In P. Goujon, S. Lavelle, P. Duquenoy, K. Kimppa, and V. Laurent (eds.), The information society: innovation, legitimacy, ethics and democracy in honor of Professor Jacques Berleur S.J. (pp. 67–72). Springer, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-72381-5_8.
van Veen, M., and Wernaart, B., 2022. Building a techno-moral city – reconciling public values, the ethical city committee and citizens’ moral gut feeling in techno-moral decision making by local governments. OpenLivingLab Days Conference 2022. p. 115.
Vermeir, I., and Verbeke, W., 2006. Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer “attitude – behavioral intention” gap. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 19:169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3.
Wernaart, B., 2021. Developing a roadmap for the moral programming of smart technology. Technology in society, 64:101466.
Wernaart, B., 2022. Food ethics. In: Wernaart, B. and Van der Meulen, B. Applied food science. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands. pp. 45–64.
Wernaart, B., 2022. Moral design and technology. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Wernaart, B., Vaznyte, R., van Velzen, M.B., and Dantuma, I.L., 2023. Responsible civilian drones. In Applied human rights. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands. pp. 151–164. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-943-5.
World Bank, 2021. Agriculture overview: development news, research, data, World Bank.
The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France, on 12 December 2015. It entered into force on 4 November 2016.