There’s a lot of food injustice in the world, John tells Ken – 1 in 8 people are undernourished, 3 million children die every year because of malnutrition – and that is just plain wrong. Ken agrees, adding that food injustice is going to be more present in upcoming years – we already cannot produce enough food for seven billion people, so population growth will only worsen the situation. But, says John, food availability is not the problem. Instead, the problem is that people cannot afford to pay for the food that is already available; he brings up how much food is wasted yearly. So, says Ken, people should grow their own food. And if there are no adequate resources to grow food for oneself, then we simply need to figure out a better way to distribute the food that already exists. Well, says John, solving global warming is easy in principle, too. In fact, food security and climate change go hand in hand, with the environmental impact of transporting food and the clearing of forests to raise livestock being only two factors. John and Ken discuss whether individual action is all that is needed to turn this situation around or whether collective, structural efforts are a more favorable bet.

John和Ken介绍了英国利兹大学人口生态学教授、英国全球粮食安全冠军Tim Benton。约翰问蒂姆“全球粮食安全冠军”是做什么的，蒂姆解释说他的工作是帮助英国政府思考未来的粮食挑战。约翰认识到全球粮食不安全是一个问题。但是，他问蒂姆，在考虑这个问题时，我们应该关注的最大单一因素是什么?贫困。发展中国家和发达地区都缺乏获取食物的途径，也无法负担得起。所以，肯提出，这是否意味着如果我们能为世界各地目前无法支付粮食的人提供收入支持，粮食不安全的问题就会消失?蒂姆回答说，很多人无法获得足够的安全食物，这与贫困有关，但也与权力有关——也就是为什么我们会有食物沙漠——和难以获得的权利有关。收入支持是解决方案的一个要素。约翰问，考虑到贫困是粮食安全的问题，我们这些有钱的人是否不是问题的一部分。 Tim explains that most people in the developed world waste massive quantities of food, so if we chose to eat differently, it would free up agricultural resources that could then be used otherwise.

Who is morally responsible for solving food insecurity concerns, John asks? Tim explains that the right to food is a fundamental human right, so there is a moral obligation affecting each one of us to ensure that all have access to food. In the developed world, we also all contribute in one way or another to global warming and other important concerns, and we must take responsibility for these contributions. Ken wonders whether he, as an individual consumer of the food choices presented to him, need to feel some moral guilt for making the choices he does. After all, individuals do not create the system or the choices available to him. Tim says that there are issues to do with every person’s consumption choices. But, adds Ken, all those consequences of individual consumption choices are highly invisible to the consumer, and the industry is not trying to make the consequences visible. Tim speaks of the benefits of living in an age of easily accessible information via technology.

John and Ken welcome audience participation, and issues ranging from the difference between demand and need and how it’s measured in calories and nutrition to whether new technologies are the route to or away from food justice are discussed. The extent to which political activity affects food justice and the unintended consequences on food justice of the actions we take are also debated. Regarding the latter, Tim speaks about the externalities of food injustices and how important it is that those costs are repaid, the question being who pays for them.

• Roving Philosophical Report(Seek to 7:09): Shuka Kalantari explores the problems of food justice not only in regards to food hunger but taking into consideration our food choices. She speaks with Mary Jo Cook, Chief Impact Officer at Fair Trade USA, about fair trade items and sustainable farming practices, and with Ashel Eldrige, founder of Earth Amplified, about food deserts in the U.S, locally produced juice, and education pathways.
  
• 60-Second Philosopher(读到46:08):伊恩·肖尔斯回忆起那些食物简单、节食就意味着抽烟、素食者都是嬉皮士的日子。现在我们知道情况并非如此，但随着知识而来的是炫耀性消费、食物放纵和势利。