Skip to main content
Log in

Taking Consumers Seriously: Two Concepts of Consumer Sovereignty

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Governments, producers, and international free tradeorganizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) areincreasingly confronted with consumers who not only buy (or don'tbuy) goods, but also demand that those goods are producedconforming to certain ethical (often diverse) standards. Not onlysafety and health belong to these ethical ideals, but animalwelfare, environmental concerns, labor circumstances, and fairtrade. However, this phantom haunts the dusty world of social andpolitical philosophy as well. The new concept ``consumersovereignty'' bypasses the conceptual dichotomy of consumer andcitizen.

According to the narrow liberal response to this newconstellation, with respect to food one should conceptualizeconsumer sovereignty as the right of the individual consumer toget information on food products and to make his or her ownchoice on the market of food products. In this conception, thereis a very strong emphasis on rules and principles with respect tothe autonomy of individuals.

I argue that these narrow liberal concepts are not sufficient forappropriate public policy-making in democratic societies, andthat they only enable us to identify problems; they do not helpnon-experts (and experts, if it comes to that, as well) inweighing the different ethical claims. Besides, not onlyprinciples play a role in the outcome, but all kinds of ideals aswell, like roles, values, and norms. My principal argument isthat analysis or justification of norms or principles is notsufficient to get a synthesis or construction of ethicalsolutions: we need some value orientation to guide us inbalancing the different ethical claims by solving an ethicalproblem. Moreover, this balancing is something that requiressocial space and social time, i.e., public debates. With theconcept of public debates a whole new dimension enters ethicalanalysis, because the attention of ethicists shifts toformulating criteria of successful and rational public debates.

However, in the broad liberal view these concepts aresupplemented with values, preferences, practices of care, andinvolvement. I argue firstly for a broadened perspective on foodas an integral part of life styles and not only as something thatpresents risks. That is the reason that food gets such intensiveattention from the public, which is summarized in the concept ofconsumer concerns. Secondly, I defend the argument that not only(rational) public debates, but intensive commitments of bothproducers and consumers in every link of the chain in so calledcare practices or consumer councils can enhance confidence in thefood production system and the way we extract our daily intakefrom nature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Beck, U., Risksociety (Sage, London, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Belt, H. v.d. and M. Korthals, “Autonomy, Information Freedom and Trust,” Economy and Society (forthcoming).

  • Chambers, S., Reasonable Democracy: Jurgen Habermas and the Politics of Discours (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J., “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory,” in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1997), pp. 3–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M., Histoire de la Sexualité 2: L'usage des Plaisirs (Galllimard, Paris, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Food Ethics Council, GM Foods: No Thanks, Unless (London, 1998).

  • Giddens, A., Modernity and Selfidentity (Polity Press, London, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A. and D. Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P., Frames of Deceit (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Korthals, M., “Cooperation and Morality,” Journal of Moral Education 21 (1992), 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korthals, M., “Ethical Dilemma's of Sustainable Agriculture,” Food Ethics Review 1(1) (2000a), 25–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korthals, M., “Zorg praktijken in de landbouw (Practices of Care in Agriculture)” (2000b, forthcoming).

  • Korthals, M. and E. Theune, “From Animal Welfare to Intrinsic Value,” in R. Von Schomberg (ed.), The Social Management of Biotechnology (Aldershot, Avebury, 1998), pp. 231–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagerspetz, O., Trust: The Tacit Demand (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhman, N., Vertrauen (Lucius and Lucius, Stuttgart, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mepham, B. (ed.), Food Ethics (Routledge, London, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., A Theory of Shopping (Polity Press, London, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortelmans, K. and S. Watson, “The Notion of Consumer in Community Law: A Lottery?” Tijdschrift voor Consumentenrecht (4) (1995), 30–40.

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genetically Modified Crops: The Social and Ethical Issue (London, 1998).

  • Petit, M. The Changing Global Agri-Food System, Manuscript (MSU, Lansing, MI, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, D. and W. Leiss, Mad Cows and Mother's Milk. The Perils of Poor Risk Communication (McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J., in S. Freeman (ed.), Collected Papers (Harvard, Cambridge MA, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, J. J., OEuvres Completes (Gallimard/Pléiade, Paris, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J., The Theory of Economic Development (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Serpell, J., In the Company of Animals (Cambridge University Press, London, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. B., “Values and Food Production,” J. Agric. Ethics 2 (1989), 209–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todt, O. and J. Lujan, “Labelling of Novel Foods, and Public Debate,” Science and Public Policy 22 (1997), 119–223.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Korthals, M. Taking Consumers Seriously: Two Concepts of Consumer Sovereignty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14, 201–215 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011356930245

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011356930245

Navigation