This article critically assesses the moral arguments that speak in favour of three consumer options: buying local food, buying global (non-local) food, and buying global food while also purchasing carbon offsets to mitigate the environmental impact of food transportation. We argue that because the offsetting option allows one to provide economic benefits to the poorest food workers while also mitigating the environmental impact of food transportation it is morally superior to the alternatives.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
This article was presented at Leiden University, the 2018 Dutch Research School of Philosophy (OZSW) conference, and the MANCEPT panel ?Normative Challenges of Food Governance?. We thank these audiences for their helpful suggestions. We also thank Anne Barnhill, Matteo Bonotti, Tyler Doggett, Sebastian K?hler, Josh Milburn, Fredrik Nyseth, Attila Tanyi, Marina Uzunova, Alex Voorhoeve, Jan-Willem Wieland, and anonymous referees for comments. Funding was provided by Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NL) (Grant No. 275-20-063).
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Philosophy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for Applied Philosophy, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.