Sustainability in agriculture: diet really does matter

Markus Vinnari1 and Petri Tapio2

1

Corresponding author: University of Eastern Finland, Department of Geographical and Historical Studies / Pinninkatu 47, 33100 Tampere, Finland. E-mail: markus.vinnari(at)uef.fi
2

Finland Futures Research Centre, University of Turku, petri.tapio@tse.fi, Research Group FIDEA www.fidea.fi Note: Unpublished, unfinished seminar paper // Please do not quote without permission

Abstract
Food consumption produces environmental stress and raises ethical issues. As humans are able to use different foodstuffs in their diets, food consumption guidance may have large benefits to nature. Meat consumption is often identified as the most environmentally harmful element of foodstuff consumption. Animal welfare and rights issues are also gaining more attention. Two means to lower meat consumption are proposed in this paper: 1) Redeveloping the taxation system that Goodland introduced in 1997. In this system, foodstuffs are taxed according to their environmental burden; an approach where adding an ethical tax that incorporates consumers attitudes on animal welfare and a coefficient that takes into account the inherent value of animals is proposed; 2) Taking the composition of national stockpile as a starting point and designing the agricultural production system from the environmental and ethical perspective. In this system, the environmentally and ethically preferable foodstuffs are purchased by the government and sold to the global markets. The premiums between these two prices would constitute the subsidies for the national production. Key words: Ecotax, Ethicstax, Sustainability, Inherent value, Food ethics

1. Changing operating system of agriculture

The agricultural system has been in a large transformation process during the last decades. The green revolution enabled an increase in production while the amount of labor was drastically decreased due to the adoption of modern machinery and biochemical engineering. There has been a global trend towards larger production units and specialization. While in the 1960s the major problem was still underproduction, currently there are many areas where oversupply causes problems and policy initiatives are introduced to guide farmers to the post-productivistic era (Walford 2003). The large transformation in the agricultural sector has also resulted in many societal effects. As agriculture, or food acquisition more generally, is currently employing a smaller share of the total population in the Western world than ever before in history, it has also slowly lost its position as a key area of the economy. This change is demonstrated, for example, by the transformation that has gone on in the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU. This transformation where agriculture is

increasingly regarded as merely a producer of raw materials to the food industry, might also have a positive upswing. As the attitude that larger public has towards the sector changes also the nostalgic emotional attitudes that have been guiding the sector might decrease. On the other hand, emotional attitudes play a significant role in the interest to animal welfare, as well. Technological development will without a doubt also enable the processing and modification of the raw materials gathered from cultivation and this will enable new modes of consumption (see Vinnari 2008). While the agricultural sector has faced all these changes it has at the same time become very subsidized and filled with other market restrictions (such as tariffs or import quotas). The globalization of the sector has been very rapid, with large amounts of new products having become available in the Western world. Simultaneously with the growth of the available food stuffs the consumption of different food stuffs has started to converge globally (Steinfeld et al. 2006). There are many possible reasons why this is happening (see for example Ritzer 1993). The cross border trade has increased more than five-fold during the last fifty years. At the same time there has been a large increase in the separation of production and consumption of agricultural products (Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011). The amount of available foodstuffs is so high that no consumer can have knowledge about all the available products. This has led to a situation where most choices are made automatically with not much reflection (Thaler and Sunsten 2008). As such, assuming that the principles of neo-classical economics would work, where the markets are informationally efficient and consumers act as rational actors, is not believable (see Burton1996; Gigerenzer and Selten 2002). For example, forty percent of the entire EU budget is formed by the subsidies to agriculture and fisheries (EU 2011a). At the same time agriculture accounts for about 1.3 percent of the EU-25 countries GDP (EU 2011b). As such nobody has plausible knowledge about what the price of food stuffs and what the share of national agricultural production would be in the case of a (hypothetical) open market. Consumption changes are however slow and redirecting trends can be quite demanding. As the population growth will continue and the consumption structures become more material intensive, meat consumption would double in a business-as-usual scenario by 2050 (Steinfeld et al. 2006). This growth would have unprecedented environmental consequences. Needs to create more sustainable food consumption structures are putting new pressures also on subsidy systems in the agricultural sector. The ecological impacts of dietary options are currently fairly well documented. The agricultural sector utilizes the majority of the ice free land area, it is the largest consumer of fresh water and it has substantial effects on biodiversity (Lang 2010). When the environmental effects of different foodstuffs are analyzed, animal originated foodstuffs usually emerge as having the highest impact (Goodland 1997; Carlsson-Kanyama et al. 2003; Kauppinen et al 2008). In addition to the economic and ecological impacts of agriculture in general and meat production in particular, ethical issues of animal welfare and even animal rights have emerged on the policy agenda. The living conditions of animals kept for meat production are increasingly considered a problem as the production units are enlarged and the space and human care per animal is reduced. One question is how the animals living conditions affect the quality of the meat, while another

question is more fundamental: are animals only objects that have an instrumental value for humans or should they be understood as subjects possessing an intrinsic value (Regan 1983)? In this article, the spheres of sustainability are first analyzed from the perspective of instrumental value and intrinsic values and spheres are demonstrated in the case of animal derived food products. In addition, the link between sustainability and modernization vs. traditionalisation is examined. This is done in order to emphasize the need to take the intrinsic value of animals into account in environmental policy and to clarify why new ways of conduct are needed as the social and economic operating environment of food production is changing. Third part of the paper examines the different aspects of sustainability related to the meat consumption. Fourth part of the paper then demonstrates how the intrinsic value could be efficiently incorporated into meat taxation so that deep modernization could be promoted. Deep modernization is presented in the paper as a way towards sustainable development that incorporates the intrinsic value approach as well as the modernization perspective (see Vinnari 2010). After the demonstration of the taxation system, the article concludes by proposing an agricultural subsidy system that takes the national stock pile as a starting point, which presents the same line of reasoning.

2. Sustainability and sustainable development

The debate over what is meant by sustainability or sustainable development has a long background. In the 1960s Macfarlane Burnet defined the basic principle for sustainable development in the following way: The resources of the Earth must be maintained for the use and enjoyment of future generations in a measure not less than we now enjoy (ref. Blutstein 2001). This framing of sustainability has remarkable similarities with the definition made famous by the Bruntland report, Our Common Future, which also emphasized the future generations as the focal point for the requested changes (WCED 1987). Sustainable development as a term has been around for a longer period of time and the meanings that it carries have been under discussion for as long as the term has existed (McManus 1996). After its original definition, sustainable development has been heavily criticized and it has been stated that it is a vague term that attracts hypocrites and fosters delusions (Robinson 2004). To a certain degree this criticism around the term is justifiable, even if one acknowledges that the definition has gained depth after its original introduction (Hamdouch and Zuindeau 2010). In addition to the pre-mentioned problems, the term has been used mainly for very anthropocentric purposes. The most often utilized definitions of sustainable development incorporate future generations as the end purpose for the need of the requested changes in human behavior. The sustainable development debate can be seen as part of a broader one regarding the governance of societal development. Arguments used in the sustainable development debate are the same as in other philosophical and political questions. As Hopwood et al. (2005) has noted: There is no such thing as a single unified philosophy of sustainable development; there is no sustainable development ism. As such there is a need to synthesize the arguments used around sustainable

development debate and link them to the philosophical and political discussions. When considering the desirability of action it is in the end a moral question and as such the philosophical perspective is at the heart of the sustainability debates. The utilitarian perspective, where the desirability of a certain outcome is evaluated by calculating the benefits and harms of different decisions together, has been debated at least from the times of Jeremy Bentham in the eighteen century. Especially the role of utilitarianism to personal morality as well as theory of public choice has been under debate. (Sen and Williams 1982) The utilitarian perspective has been especially influential in economics, which lies at the heart of guiding peoples actions (Jonsson 2011). The utilitarian perspective can yield a very anthropocentric world view. Some neo-classical economists have even gone as far as to state that economics does not have anything to offer to perspectives in which natural resources could not be replaced by human made capital (Pohjola 2011). The utilitarian perspective is not however the only possible approach to economics (van Staveren 2007; Jonsson 2011). Also the deontological perspective, which offers moral rules, could be incorporated to the economic way of thinking, as well as virtue ethics that is interested in responsibility in specific instances (van Staveren 2007; Jonsson 2011). Best known proponent of deontological perspective is perhaps Immanuel Kant who stated that humans should follow universal laws (duties) (Kant 1780).

Deep ecology Animism Degrowth economics Seasonal diet Local food Traditionalism

Intrinsic value

Deep modernization Life-centralism Neogrowth Vegan diet Polycultured vegetable production Ecological modernization Humanism Resource economics Late-modernity Ecolabeled food Integrated production Modernisation

premodernity

modernity

Conservative thinking Virtue ethics Ecological economics Organic diet Small-scale production

Green revolution Utilitarianism Neo-classical economics Omnivorous diet Techno-chemical production

Instrumental value Figure 1. Five environmental policy schools of thought in food production and consumption related to modernity and value perspectives towards nature

Sustainable development and sustainability need not be seen as separate schools of thought that form two different perspectives in their relationship towards modernization (institutional-scientifictechnical fix or return to the traditional lifestyles) or to value change (inherent value or intrinsic value for the subject in hand). Rather, when crossing the continuum between instrumental and

intrinsic value on one axis and continuum between traditionalisation and modernization on the other axis one ends up with a fourfold table. This is illustrated in Fig 1. In addition to the policy schools of thought, the entities are also analyzed according to human-nature relationship, economic approach, food consumption, as well as food production premises.

The upper left hand corner consists of an area where the proponents think that natural limits have been overstepped and there is a need to retreat to consumption levels that were sustainable. This so called Deep Ecological perspective was introduced by Arne Nss (1989). The human-nature relationship in this quarter is animism where the proponents consider all living things to posses some kind of life-principle including a unity of life. Not only humans, but also other animals and plants possess inherent value. To achieve such a condition, there is a need to substantially decrease human activities that would probably result in decreasing GDP (Tapio 2002). This would mean the degrowth of the economy. It would also mean traditional farming practices and living conditions. In this type of thinking, the environmental problems are solved by returning to the traditional ways of conduct and re-establishing the natural relationship (Linkola 1989). Seasonal diet is the way of choice in the deep ecological perspective and food production should mainly local.

In the bottom left hand corner (traditionalism, instrumental value), there is an area where nature is protected so that it is a valuable entity for humans and humans do not necessary yet understand all the benefits that might arise from it. This conservative perspective emphasizes virtue ethics as the ethical basis as it stresses the interrelatedness of the different agents. The role of economic interaction from the perspective of virtue ethics is well formulated by van Staveren (2007, p. 34): Virtue ethics understands morality as arising in economic practices through endogenous mechanisms that make morality an integral part of agent motivations, reasons, and ends. This does not require an authority to enforce moral rules that tell people what to do. Instead, morality as virtue relies upon the internal social mechanisms embedded in economic practices, such as reputation, responsibility, and trust. As such this type of economy would require relatively short distances between the producer and consumer and emphasis should be on small scale organic production. As the position towards economic growth is doubtful and environmental factors are seen as the basis for economic development the economic perspective this view is in line with some ecological economics thinking (e.g. Georgescu-Roegen 1977). In the bottom right hand corner (modernistic, instrumental value), is the green revolution perspective where nature is primarily seen as a source of materials and the relationship is mainly utilitarian. The economic approach is traditional neo-classical economics where natural resources can be substituted with human capital. As human preferences are given, the object of economic development is to produce more of the same products for the consumers. The omnivorous diet that

consumers currently utilize is achieved by exploiting heavily natural resources with harsh chemicaltechnical measures. Between the third and fourth quarter (modernistic, value-neutral) is situated the ecological modernization perspective. This can be described as an optimistic reform oriented strategy, where its proponents see modernization as positive for the environment. In accordance with this perspective economics is needed to guide supply and demand to achieve efficient usage of resources from the perspective of humans. This can be achieved by utilizing for example ecolabels to guide consumer decision making. Production should be done efficiently by integrated production where natural resources circle in the farms. The last quarter (intrinsic value, modernization) covers the so called deep modernistic perspective where technological modernization is seen as part of the solution to the environmental crisis, but a value change in peoples attitudes towards other life forms is also emphasized (see Vinnari 2010). The question of life is central in the deep modernization entity. As development and economic growth are considered as possibilities for achieving the targets of the viewpoint, the associated economic perspective has similarities with the targets of the Neogrowth economy. Similarities with the Neogrowth and deep modernization can be summarized in the following points (Malaska 2011): 1) dematerialisation of production growth, "more from less in production" 2) immaterialisation of consumption growth, the "more production of well-being through less tangible consumption" 3) lifestyle change, "more attention to non-material-intensive existence" 4) transition from an industrial material intensive information society to less material intensive interaction and service economy. As intrinsic value is granted also to other life forms the target is to achieve a vegan diet and polycultured vegetable production that enables sustaining biodiversity.

3. Dimensions of sustainability and the animal issue

The debates about the sustainability of animal derived food stuff consumption have long roots. For at least the last two thousand years the acceptability of using animals as a source of human nutrition has been questioned (Stuart 2007). This contested nature of using meat as food stuff has been debated at least from three perspectives. First, the effects that meat consumption has on the environment (ecological sustainability) ; second, animal suffering and the inherent value that animals might possess (ethical sustainability); third, the emotional effects that killing has on humans as people and the societal effects that the excess meat consumption has on consumers in the Western world and the ramifications it has in the third world countries (social and economic sustainability). In addition to these three arguments, a fourth argument is presented here: the changing operating space that technological development might bring with it, which may be called anticipatory and reflective sustainability. There is some indication that technological development might bring some assistance to the rising meat consumption (Vinnari 2008), but as the global environmental constraints are becoming more evident also institutional changes in consumption practices and citizens values are needed (Huesemann 2006). Some propositions for ways to lower meat consumption have already been made (Goodland 1997; McMichael et al 2007; Deckers 2010a;

Vinnari 2008). This article analyses two specific means to decrease meat consumption. A modified taxation system is first presented in order to demonstrate the proposed system.

3.1 Ecological sustainability

Most of the attention that meat consumption has lately been awarded stems from its environmental effects. This is partly because of the risk that the growing global population is expected to bring with it. The human population is expected to reach seven billion by 2012 and nine billion by the year 2050 (UN 2004). In addition, the loss of biodiversity and global warming are expected to bring catastrophic consequences with them (Rockstrm et al. 2009). In the business as usual scenario, the increasing population will get wealthier and is expected to consume products located higher in the food chain (Steinfeld et al. 2006; McMichael et al 2007). Rising worldwide meat consumption is expected to have serious effects on, for instance, biodiversity, climate, and nutrition cycle (Lang 2010). Further, the connection between land and water usage and meat consumption has been well established (Tilman et al 2001; Chapagain and Hoekstra 2004). Meat consumption is, in fact, one of the critical areas in solving environmental problems (Steinfeld et al. 2006). In the case of the environmental effects of meat production it is also relevant if the animals are seen as having intrinsic value or instrumental value only, because that directs the preferred development. If the animals are considered to have only instrumental value then it is acceptable to develop the animals to produce less green house gases or other emissions as is currently done by either modifying the animals (genetically or by traditional breeding) or their food. If the animals are considered to have inherent value such development is not acceptable.

3.2 Ethical sustainability

In the case of ethics related to animals the debate about the inherent/instrumental value is the most evident. Many philosophers have critically discussed the justification of eating animals and considered the current treatment of animals to be specisism, which is a form of racism (Singer 1975; Regan 1983, Aaltola 2006). In the utilitarian perspective the key is to avoid harm. In modern animal agriculture the harming of animals is part of the system and as such eating animals is not justifiable (Singer 1975). From another influential philosophical perspective, the deontological perspective, animals are considered subjects of a life and as such they are valuable entities that cannot be killed (Regan 1983). In animal ethics there are arguments that favor instrumental value of animals as well as intrinsic value of animals and it can be considered as a continuum from the more tolerant perspective of animal usage to the more strict perspective where animals are seen as equals to humans (Sztybel 1998).

3.3 Social and economic sustainability

The longest roots for questioning the acceptability of meat consumption stem from the effects that the killing of other animals has on humans. Some acknowledged thinkers have opposed the killing

of animals because of the demoralizing effects that it might have on the human mind (Locke 1693/2008, section 116; Oswald, 1791/2008, chap. 27). In the Western world, meat symbolizes human superiority over nature and it is valued as the highest ranking food stuff (Thomas 1983). It has been proposed that meat eating upholds in its part the male dominated culture (Adams 1999). Consumers seem to acknowledge the harms caused to animals by meat consumption but can ignore them easily due to the invisibility of animal farming in the late-modern society (e.f. Frewer et al. 2005). Even though meat production enhances social sustainability by providing income to the producers, it should be noted that at the same time it prevents producers of vegetable based products (such as tofu, seitan, lentils, tempeh, etc.) from gaining larger profits. As humans have to eat and cannot eternally increase the amount of eating the profitability of the food industry in some area always deprives the income of some other producers. Also, in cases of inequality of income and landownership, cash crop production in the developing world for the markets of the industrialised world reduces affordable basic foodstuff production by the poor in developing countries. Thus the critique that our current industrial economy is so dependent on natural resources that very strong sustainability would not be plausible (Ayres et al. 1998), does not hold in this case. The industrial economy around agriculture could be changed to produce other products.

3.4 Anticipatory and reflective sustainability

In addition to these three points technological development might bring with it a fourth argument why meat eating and human attitudes towards nature might need rethinking. As the phase in which humans are able to build machines that are more intelligent than themselves might not be that far in the future, humans should also start to acknowledge what these machines might think about them. Humans have already lost to machines in chess and lately also in question answering systems have defeated the human opponents. The development of the artificial intelligence has been very fast lately. Development and creation of these new moral agents will raise new ethical questions (see Wallach and Allen 2008). This development rises the question related to the animal question that should not humankind try to develop towards the direction in which it values other life forms so that it can express superiority to the other intelligent life forms? The analysis of sustainability should try to anticipate the changing operating system as well as use the analysis to reflect human beings abilities in relation to the abilities of the others. This reflection might in its part act as a learning process. Finnish adjunct professor of zoology Jussi Viitala (2003) has stated that the only difference between the human species and other animals is that humans possess thumbs. Also Frans de Waal (2009) has emphasized that establishing boundaries between different animals is not plausible as the abilities present themselves in such diverse ways. The question is if the human race wants other intelligent entities to place inherent value on it or does it also only have instrumental value.

4. Tackling the problem

After the ethical base addressed above, two practical economic measures for reducing meat consumption are dealt with. The first is adding on foodstuffs an ethical tax based on animal welfare

considerations and the intrinsic value of the animal and the second concerns rethinking agricultural subsidies. These economic measures are based on the deep modernization perspective where intrinsic value is taken as a starting point for sustainable development. In this system the need for continuing the modernization is considered imperative as new ways of production as well as technological development of the end products are considered vital for the transformation of the consumption structure towards a vegetable based diet.

4.1 Taxing the environmental effects as well as animal welfare

First, the seminal work by Robert Goodland (1997) is examined. He proposed a taxation system based on the location of foodstuffs in the food chain (see figure 2). This taxation system seems to be in line with the LCA and MIPS analysis made for the different foodstuffs (Carlsson-Kanyama et al. 2003; Carlsson-Kanyama and Gonzalez 2009; Kauppinen et al. 2008).

Most Impact /Least Efficient Mammals Highest tax Birds Cold-blooded vertebrates Invertebrates Saprophytes Autotrophs Cattle/Swine/Goats Chickens/Geese/Ducks/Turkeys Fish/Amphibians Crustacean /Insects/Mollusk Fungi/Yeasts/other Microbes Legumes/Grains/Vegetables/Fruits/Nuts/Alga Least Impact/Most Efficient Figure 2. Environmental and bioethical food chain ranking (modified from Goodland 1997) This system is modified by considering also animal welfare issues. A higher taxation is proposed for products made from animals having the worst living conditions (e.g. poultry and pigs) and, correspondingly, a lower taxation to products made from animals with better living conditions (e.g. cows and reindeer). As for the useful background, the consumers perceptions of the living conditions of various agricultural animals have been examined in the EU (Eurobarometer 2005) as well as in single countries (e.g. Maria 2006; Kupsala et al. 2011). In addition to this animal welfare taxation (see figure 3.) we propose that a tax would also be placed on the death of the animal so that the intrinsic value of the being would be incorporated.

Lowest tax

Lowest estimated animal welfare Birds Highest tax Broilers Laying hens Turkeys Mammals Swine Cattle Goats Lowest tax Cold-blooded vertebrates Farmed fish Wild fish Invertebrates Crustacean /Insects/Mollusc Highest estimated animal welfare Figure 3. Welfare ranking of different animals according to consumers and producers

The conclusive tax system can be presented as a formula: Tax percentage = Environmental stress ranking of the food stuff + (perceived animal welfare harm by the consumers)* deprivation of life coefficient This taxation system would have a utilitarian part (harm to nature and harm to animals) and also a deontological part that would incorporate the death element into the price of meat. The deontological part would guide peoples choices towards what they ought to do. It also incorporates animals as subjects-of-a-life as Tom Regan (1983) calls them. In other words there would be taxation also for the inherent value" that the animals possess. This inherent value would be incorporated in the life coefficient into the taxation formula. What the actual numbers for the different factors would be is a political question.

4.2 Rethinking agricultural subsidies

The second means for lowering meat consumption addresses redirecting agricultural subsidies (c.f. Marlow et al 2009; Garnett 2009). This system is proposed as the agricultural sector is currently so heavily subsidized that taxing the subsidized system, as proposed in the last chapter, would make it only a more complicated one. The proposed system could be used as the only way to grant subsidies to farmers and as such it would add to the transparency of the whole agricultural system. The proposed system takes the national stockpile as the starting point. National stockpiles are part of national level security of supply that means that there is also safeguard of food stuff supplies in crisis or disaster situations. For example in Finland there is Government's Decision on Safeguarding

the Security of Supply, in which the objective is to reach such a degree of preparation that the population's capacity to make a living, to carry out necessary social activities and to achieve the material preconditions for an effective national defense are not endangered (National Emergency Supply Agency 2011). This means the stockpiling of raw materials as well as food. The national stockpiles composition can be evaluated from the nutritional standpoint by measuring the elements (proteins, carbohydrates, and fats) and their nutritional values (fat composition, amount of vitamins and minerals). This evaluation could be made in line with state-of-the-art knowledge about the environmental impacts of different foodstuffs. Adequate knowledge exists about the life cycle effects of different foods, their material inputs per service, carbon footprint and their water consumption, for instance (c.f. Deckers 2010b). After this evaluation stage, the ethical information on animal based products, meaning the consumers evaluation of the perceived animal welfare situation as well as the deprivation of life coefficient proposed in the last chapter, could be added to the environmental information. This would mean that majority of food products in the national stockpile would consist of the legumes, grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts and algae. The other food stuffs would only be incorporated if the nutritional requirements could not be met with these products or if they offer the nutrients more affordably considering the environmental and animal welfare costs as well as the inherent value i.e. deprivation of life coefficient. The selection of different foodstuffs would differ by the climatic and cultivation conditions offered in different countries. The next step is the agreement by the government on buying the products. The buying price should be higher than the market price, and the subsidies to agriculture would be paid as the compensation between the production price and the buy-in price. Governments would sell the products to the highest bidder in the global market. This system would strongly support environmentally efficient production and recognize also ethical aspects. Even though this system does not solve the food mile problem it would guide the food system to a beneficial direction. Food miles might not be very relevant from the perspective of the total green house gas emissions from food consumption (Coley et al. 2009). More emissions are generated for example from fertilization, soil cultivation, mechanization of agriculture, pesticide usage and animal originated green house gases as well as the inputs of water usage and livestock expansion driven deforestation (Carlsson-Kanyama and Gonzalez 2009). The benefits of the proposed system could include: 1. Composition of national stockpiles that would secure food distribution also in the occurrence of crises or disasters 2. Securing national level food production in each country 3. Stabilizing food prices as producers can be certain of market demand for the products in the national stockpile 4. Simplification of the current agricultural subsidy system 5. Guidance of consumer behavior by directing the subsidies to the environmentally least harmful products and away from animal derived food stuffs 6. Securing wider selection of food stuffs in the global markets as the national stockpile composition would have such a distinct compositions in different parts of the world.

5. Conclusion and discussion

Human diet is one important factor when the sustainability of peoples lifestyle is evaluated. Especially meat consumption is connected to an environmental burden (for example effects on biodiversity, emissions of greenhouse gasses, water consumption). The usage of animals as food stuffs also raises many ethical concerns as well as economic issues. As eating is such a fundamental part of peoples daily activities it also in its part moulds their identities and as such it also affects how they position themselves towards other life forms. The debate on sustainability and sustainable development has persisted for a long time. What makes this debate such a difficult one to address is the fact that in the end it becomes an ethical question: which entities people value and which they consider to be exploitable. This discussion is also at the heart of economics and the way different actors consider it preferable to guide societies. In this article the deep modernization perspective was presented as a starting point for the proposed taxation system. In the deep modernistic perspective modernization, meaning technological development as well as better efficiency, is considered as the way to achieve sustainability, i.e. sustainable development. As such modernization is not adequate to achieve deep modernization, but also value changes are considered a requirement, meaning granting inherent value also to other living entities than humans. This would mean that the end goal would be a society that would abandon meat eating, a vegan society. The vegan society could be achieved by a taxation system that would not only tax the environmental burden of different foodstuffs, but also the harm that the production system causes to animals and the deprivation of life coefficient that would increase the tax by every life that is necessary to acquire the foodstuff in question. A similar system could be used when the national Security of Supply systems in the case of food are constructed. Based on the pre-described pricing system a government would offer to by the cheapest products that fulfill the nutritional requirements from producers within a country and if the government is unable to sell them within the country it would sell them in the global markets at a suitable price. The premium between the buying price and selling price would act as a subsidy that secures national production.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank adjunct professor Osmo Kuusi, for giving some pre thoughts for thinking process related to technological development and animal rights. This paper is a co-product of two projects, Politicised Animals: the Consumer and Farm Animals (POLLE) and The Climate Discussion on Transport (CAST). Academy of Finland is gratefully acknowledged for funding.

References
Aaltola, E. 2006. Animal individuality Cultural and moral categorisations. Reports from the Department of Philosophy, Vol. 17. Painosalama Oy, Turku. Adams, C. 1999. The sexual politics of meat: A feminist vegetarian critical theory. New York: Continuum. Ayres, R., van den Bergh, J. and Gowdy, J. 1998. Viewpoint: Weak versus Strong Sustainability. Available at: <http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/98103.pdf>, retrieved 23.2.2011. Blutstein, H. 2003. A forgotten pioneer of sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 11, 339 341. Burton, M. 1996. Random Walk Down Wall Street, W. W. Norton, New York. Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Ekstrm, M. and Shanahan, H. 2003. Food and life cycle energy inputs: consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency, Ecol. Econ. 44 (2), 293307. Carlsson-Kanyama, A. and Gonzalez, A. 2009. Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89(suppl), 1704S9S. Chapagain, A. and Hoekstra, A. 2004. Water Footprints of Nations Volume 1: Main Report, UNESCO-IHE, Delft. Coley D., Howard, M. and Winter, M. 2009. Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: A comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy, 34, (2), 150-155. Deckers, J. 2010a. What policy should be adopted to curtail the negative global health impacts associated with the consumption of farmed animal products? Res Publica, 16, 57-72. Deckers, J. 2010b. Should the consumption of farmed animal products be restricted, and if so, by how much? Food Policy, 35, 497503. de Waal, F. 2009. The Age of Empathy: Natures Lessons for a Kinder Society. Harmony Books. EU 2011a. Structure and ceilings of the financial framework 2007-2013. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/budget_glance/what_for_en.htm Accessed 5.4.2011. EU 2011b. The Common Agricultural Policy Explained. European Commission DirectorateGeneral for Agriculture and Rural Development. Available online at: <http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/capexplained/cap_en.pdf>, retrieved 5.4.2011. Eurobarometer 2005. Attitudes of Consumers Towards the Welfare of Farmed Animals, Special Eurobarometer 229/Wave 63.2 TNS Opinion & Social, European Commission, Directorate General Press and Communication, Brussels.

Frewer, L.J., Kole, A., Van de Kroon, S. and De Lauwere, C. 2005. Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (4), 345-367. Garnett, T. 2009. Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for policy makers. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, (4), 491-503. Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas 1977. The steady state and ecological salvation: A thermodynamic analysis. BioScience, 27, (4), 266-270. Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. 2002. Bounded Rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge. Goodland, R. 1997. Environmental sustainability in agriculture: diet matters, Ecol. Econ., 23, (3), 189200. Hamdoucha, A. and Zuindeau, B. 2010. Sustainable development, 20 years on: methodological innovations, practices and open issues. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 53, (4), 427438. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M. and OBrien, G. 2005. Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches. Sustainable Development, 13, 3852. Huesemann, M. 2006. Can advances in science and technology prevent global warming? A critical review of limitations and challenges. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 11, (3), 539-577. Jonsson, P. 2011. On utilitarianism vs virtue ethics as foundations of economic choice theory. Humanomics, 27, (1), 24-40. Kant, I. (trans. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott) 1780. The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. Available online at < http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/metaphys-elements-of-ethics.txt>, retrieved 9.5.2011. Kauppinen, T., Lhteenoja, S. and Lettenmeier, M. 2008. Kotimaisten elintarvikkeiden materiaalipanos ElintarvikeMIPS (Material input in Finnish food stuffs) Maa- ja elintarviketalous 130. Juvenes Print, Tampere. Kupsala, S., Jokinen, P., Vinnari M. and Pohjolainen, P. 2011. Elinten hyvinvoinnin politisoituminen: kuluttajien ksitykset tuotantoelinkysymyksist. (in Finnish: Politication of animal welfare: consumer perspective to the production animal issue) Maaseudun uusi aika (forth coming). Lambin, E. and Meyfroidt, P. 2011. Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, (9), 3465-3472. Lang, T. 2010. Crisis? What crisis? The normality of the current food crisis. Journal of Agrarian Change, 10, 8797.

Linkola, P. 1989. Johdatus 1990-luvun ajatteluun (in Finnish: Introduction to the thinking in 1990s), WSOY, Porvoo. Locke, J. 1693/2008. "Cruelty". In: Some thoughts concerning education. Available at: < http://www.animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-timeline/animal-rights-l/loc-john-locke/1693education-cruelty.htm >, retrieved 9.5.2011. Malaska, P. 2010. Planetaarinen tilastotoimi. (In Finnish: Planetary Statistical Service). Futura, 30, (1), 6-19. Maria, G. 2006. Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livestock Science, 103, 250 256. Marlow, H.J., Hayes, W.K., Soret, S., Carter, R.L., Schwab, E.R. and Sabat, J. 2009. Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89, (5), 1699S1703S. McManus, P. 1996. Contested terrains: Politics, stories and discourses of sustainability', Environmental Politics, 5, (1), 48-73 McMichael, A., Powles, J., Butler, C. and Uauy, R. 2007. Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet, 370, 12531263. National Emergency Supply Agency 2011. The Council of State has established new objectives for security of supply. Available at: <http://www.nesa.fi/> retrieved 4.4.2011. Nss, A. (Translated by D. Rothenberg) 1989. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Oswald, J. 1791/2008. The cry of nature: an appeal to mercy and to justice on behalf of the persecuted animals. J. Johnson, London. Available at: <http://animalrightshistory.org/library/osw-john-oswald/cry-ofnature.htm>, retrieved 28.11.2008. Pohjola, M. 2011. Kansantuote, hyvinvointi ja kestv kehitys. (In Finnish: National product, welfare and sustainable development). Kansantaloudellinen aikakauskirja, 107, (1), 17-29. Regan, T. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights, University of California Press, Berkeley. Ritzer, G. 1993. The McDonaldization of Society: An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life. Thousand Oaks, Pine Forge Press. Rockstrm, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, ., Chapin, S., Lambin, E., Lenton, T., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Srlin, S., Snyder, P., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R., Fabry, V., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, C. and Foley. J. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, (24), 472475. Robinson, J. 2004. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol. Econ., 48, 369-384.

Sen, A. and Williams, B. 1982. Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Singer, P. 1975. Animal Liberation -A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, Avon Books, New York. Steinfeld H., Gerber P., Wassenaar T., Castel V., Rosales M. and de Haan, C. 2006. Livestock's long shadow environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Stuart, T. 2007. The bloodless revolution a cultural history of vegetarianism from 1600 to modern times. W. W. Norton & Company, New York. Sztybel, D. 1998. Animal welfare. In: Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare, ed. by Marc Bekoff, Marc, 130132. Greenwood Press, Westport. Tapio, P. 2002. The Limits to Traffic Volume Growth. The Content and Procedure of Administrative Futures Studies on Finnish Transport CO2 Policy. Acta Futura Fennica, no. 8. Finnish Society for Futures Studies. 234 p. Thaler, R. and Sunsten, C. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press. Thomas, K. 1983. Man and the natural world: changing attitudes in England 15001800. Penguin Books, London. Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D'Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W., Simberloff, D. and Swackhamer, D. 2001. Forecasting Agriculturally Driven Global Environmental Change, Science, 292, (5515), 281284. York, R., and Rosa, E.A. 2003. Key challenges to ecological modernization theory. Organization and Environment, 16, (3), 273288. UN 2004. World Population to 2300 -Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Walford, N. 2003. Productivism is allegedly dead, long live productivism. Evidence of continued productivist attitudes and decision-making in South-East England. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, (4), 491-502. Wallach, W. and Allen, C. 2008. Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong. Oxford University Press. Walters, K. and Portmess, L. 1999. Ethical Vegetarianism From Pythagoras to Peter Singer. State University of New York Press, Albany.

van Staveren, I. 2007. Beyond Utilitarianism and Deontology: Ethics in Economics. Review of Political Economy, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2135. Viitala, J. 2003. Inhimillinen elin, elimellinen ihminen (In Finnish: The humane animal, animalist human), Atena publishing. Vinnari, M. 2008. The future of meat consumptionexpert views from Finland, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75, (6), 893904. Vinnari, M. 2010. The past, present and future of eating meat in Finland. Turku School of Economics, Turku.