Healthy food provision: stranded between corporate power and corporate powerlessness
4:00pm - 6:00pm /
Thursday 30th March 2017
/ Venue: Lecture Theatre 7 Rendall Building
Type: Seminar /
Category: Research
- Marketing, Recruitment and Events Team
- Suitable for: All welcome to attend.
- Admission: Free to attend, please register
- Book now
Add this event to my calendar
Click on "Create a calendar file" and your browser will download a .ics file for this event.
Microsoft Outlook: Download the file, double-click it to open it in Outlook, then click on "Save & Close" to save it to your calendar. If that doesn't work go into Outlook, click on the File tab, then on Open & Export, then Open Calendar. Select your .ics file then click on "Save & Close".
Google Calendar: download the file, then go into your calendar. On the left where it says "Other calendars" click on the arrow icon and then click on Import calendar. Click on Browse and select the .ics file, then click on Import.
Apple Calendar: The file may open automatically with an option to save it to your calendar. If not, download the file, then you can either drag it to Calendar or import the file by going to File >Import > Import and choosing the .ics file.
Guest lecture given by Garrath Williams, Lancaster University
My paper summarises a longer piece of research that I have recently undertaken as part of the EU-funded I.Family Study http://www.ifamilystudy.eu .
I will present and defend the following claims:
(1) corporations are not free market actors, but arise thanks to a specific form of state intervention;
(2) contemporary food markets are structured by corporate activity (e.g. the well-known ‘hour-glass’ between producers and consumers);
(3) the resulting markets are bound to promote processed foods, which are invariably less healthy than whole foods;
(4) though very powerful in some regards, corporations are powerless to resist this logic; hence
(5) the only tenable way to uphold public health is greater statutory regulation of corporate activity;
(6) such regulation should not be understood as restrictive, but rather as enabling corporate actors to respect important public goods.
At a more philosophical level, I also want to make this overarching argument: we should resist the careless (or disingenuous) assumption that government interventions (e.g. to create or modify corporate markets) are opposed to freedom; any sensible ‘restriction’ will uphold some sort of freedom; the crucial question is always what sorts of freedom we should value.
I am Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Lancaster University. My research interests fall across ethics, political theory and applied ethics. One of my main interests, in all three of these areas, is responsibility – both conceptually and in terms of its practical aspects. For the past ten years, I have been involved in collaborative research on children, health and public policy, including the EU-funded I.Family study, which investigates diet and health-related behaviours in a large cohort of families across Europe.
My recent interest in corporations touches on all of these areas: corporate responsibilities and accountability, their relation to political authority, and their impact on public health.
Discussants
• Neville Rigby, International Obesity Forum
• Professor Simon Capewell, University of Liverpool
• Professor Amandine Garde, University of Liverpool
My paper summarises a longer piece of research that I have recently undertaken as part of the EU-funded I.Family Study http://www.ifamilystudy.eu .
I will present and defend the following claims:
(1) corporations are not free market actors, but arise thanks to a specific form of state intervention;
(2) contemporary food markets are structured by corporate activity (e.g. the well-known ‘hour-glass’ between producers and consumers);
(3) the resulting markets are bound to promote processed foods, which are invariably less healthy than whole foods;
(4) though very powerful in some regards, corporations are powerless to resist this logic; hence
(5) the only tenable way to uphold public health is greater statutory regulation of corporate activity;
(6) such regulation should not be understood as restrictive, but rather as enabling corporate actors to respect important public goods.
At a more philosophical level, I also want to make this overarching argument: we should resist the careless (or disingenuous) assumption that government interventions (e.g. to create or modify corporate markets) are opposed to freedom; any sensible ‘restriction’ will uphold some sort of freedom; the crucial question is always what sorts of freedom we should value.
I am Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Lancaster University. My research interests fall across ethics, political theory and applied ethics. One of my main interests, in all three of these areas, is responsibility – both conceptually and in terms of its practical aspects. For the past ten years, I have been involved in collaborative research on children, health and public policy, including the EU-funded I.Family study, which investigates diet and health-related behaviours in a large cohort of families across Europe.
My recent interest in corporations touches on all of these areas: corporate responsibilities and accountability, their relation to political authority, and their impact on public health.
Discussants
• Neville Rigby, International Obesity Forum
• Professor Simon Capewell, University of Liverpool
• Professor Amandine Garde, University of Liverpool