The Multifaceted Nature of “Food Diversity” as a Life-Related Legal Value

Parisio (2005), MacMaoláin (2015), Masini (2015), Masini (2014), Alemanno and Gabbi (2014), Germanò et al. (2014), Lambek et al. (2014), Costato et al. (2013), Costato and Albisinni (2012), Ferrari and Izzo (2012), Jannarelli (2011a) and Costato et al. (2011). For a recent public law perspective see the systematic proposal by Perfetti (2014), p. 3 et seqq.

Chen (2014), Rook Basile and Carmignani (2013), Collart Dutilleul (2013), Bevilacqua (2012), Adornato (2012), p. 405 et seqq; Rook Basile and Germanò (2011), D’Addezio (2010), p. 379 et seqq; Jannarelli (2010), p. 565 et seqq; Hospes and Hadiprayitno (2010) and Sollini (2006).

Germanò and Strambi (2014), Cordini (2013), Petrelli (2012), Ricci (2012), Germanò (2009) and Germanò (2008).

Capelli (2014), p. 487 et seqq; Capelli (2001), p. 177 et seqq; Angelicchio (2014), p. 345 et seqq; Trapè (2012), Lucifero (2011), p. 321 et seqq; Canfora (2011), p. 73 et seqq; Canfora (2010), p. 91 et seqq; Rubino (2010), p. 255 et seqq; Rubino (2007), p. 121 et seqq; Arfini et al. (2010), Cristiani and Massart (2008), Lucchi (2008), p. 49 et seqq; Strambi (2007), p. 746 et seqq; Visser (2007), p. 179 et seqq; Pisanello (2006), p. 556 et seqq; Strambi and Alabrese (2005).

Rinella and Okoronko (2015), p. 89 et seqq; Andree et al. (2014), Lupone et al. (2013), FAO (2012), McDermott (2012), p. 543 et seqq; De Schutter (2012), p. 1 et seqq; De Schutter and Cordes (2011); Paoloni (2011), p. 159 et seqq; Adinolfi (2010), p. 125 et seqq Certomà (2010), p. 1 et seqq; Kent (2008) and Haugen (2007). Of great importance for their depth are the reflections of Jannarelli (2011b), p. 33 et seqq.

Among these, note that on April 8, 2014, Université Laval (Québec, Canada) launched a “Law Research Chair for Food Diversity and Security”, currently held by Professor Geneviève Parent. See https://​chaire-diversite-alimentaire.​ulaval.​ca/ and https://​chaire-diversite-alimentaire.​ulaval.​ca/​wp-content/​uploads/​2016/​08/​fiche-chaire.​pdf (accessed on August 2, 2017). See also the valuable contribution by Petrillo (2012), p. 211 et seqq, especially p. 222 et seqq.

The Carta di Milano, presented by the Minister for Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies on 28 April 2015, contains within its many sections a series of references, for example, to “biodiversity”, to the “the diversification of agricultural production and livestock keeping so as to safeguard biodiversity and animal welfare”, to the promotion of activities for the “knowledge and the exchange of different food cultures, starting with typical, local and organic products” with respect to “dietary, physical, and environmental education programmes as instruments of health and prevention” to be developed “in schools and school meal services”. An express, specific and wide-ranging reference to the legal value of food diversity is therefore missing. However, the Carta di Milano recognizes that “food plays an important role in defining each person’s identity and is a cultural component that describes and gives value to a territory and its inhabitants” and that it is necessary to consider “food as a cultural patrimony, and as such [...] highlighting the value of its origin and originality with transparent regulatory processes”. The full text of the Carta is available at http://​carta.​milano.​it/​wp-content/​uploads/​2015/​04/​Italian_​version_​Milan_​Charter.​pdf (accessed on August 2, 2017).

The Law 1 December 2015, n. 194 establishes (art. 1) the “principles for the establishment of a national system for the protection and enhancement of the biodiversity of agricultural and food interest, aimed at the protection of the local genetic resources of agricultural and food interests from the risk of extinction and genetic erosion”, founded on four pillars: the national Registry for the biodiversity of agricultural and food interest (art. 3); the national Network for the biodiversity of agricultural and food interest (art. 4); the national Portal for the biodiversity of agricultural and food interest (art. 5); the permanent Committee for the biodiversity of agricultural and food interest (art. 8). Moreover, the Law envisions: the recognition of the figures of “custodian farmers” and of “custodian breeders” (engaged in the conservation of local genetic resources that are subject to the risk of extinction or of genetic erosion) (art. 2); the adoption of a “Plan” and of “National Guidelines” for the conservation of the biodiversity of agricultural and food interest; in reality however referring only to (the Plan) the biodiversity of “agricultural interest” and (the National Guidelines) to the “conservation in situ, on farm and ex situ of the vegetable, animal and microbial diversity of agrarian interest” (art. 7); the institution of a Foundation for the protection of the biodiversity of agricultural and food interest, destined solely however “to support the actions of farmers and breeders in the implementation of this law, as well as to support the public authorities concerned, exclusively for the purposes of growth, in the production and conservation of seed varieties at risk of genetic erosion or extinction” (art. 10); the promotion of “biodiversity of agricultural and food interest routes” (art. 12); the institution of the National Day for the biodiversity of agricultural and food interest, fixed for 20 May each year (art. 14); support and participation in research concerning the biodiversity of agricultural and food interest (art. 16). Among all the provisions of the law, very few touch on food diversity beyond the simple perspective of agricultural biodiversity. Among these, it is necessary to draw attention to: the promotion of the “Food community and of the biodiversity of agricultural and food interest” (art. 13), which correspond to “local areas arising from agreements between local farmers, custodian farmers and breeders, ethical purchasing groups, academic institutions and universities, research centres, associations for the protection of the quality of the biodiversity of agricultural and food interests, school meal services, hospitals, bars and restaurants, retailers, small scale and medium-sized artisan enterprises in the agricultural and food sectors, as well as public bodies”, and can also have as its object “the establishment in particular of short supply chains, direct sales, and the exchange and sale of agricultural and food products within the local circuit”, as well as “the study, recovery and transmission of traditional knowledge concerning … a good diet”; school initiatives, through projects promoted by the Regions to sensitize young people to and foster awareness of local agro-food products (art. 15) (Author’s own translation).

Hinkel et al. (2014), p. 51 et seqq; Levin et al. (2013), p. 111 et seqq; Epstein et al. (2013), p. 432 et seqq; Boyd and Folke (2012), Glaser et al. (2012), Crane (2010), p. 19 et seqq; Armitage et al. (2009), p. 95 et seqq; Norberg et al. (2008), p. 46 et seqq; Ostrom and Janssen (2005), p. 239 et seqq; Berkes et al. (2003), Holling (2001), p. 390 et seqq.

Ericksen (2008), p. 234 et seqq, p. 237, who observes that “Berkes and Folke (1998), Folke et al. (2003) and Holling (2001) describe coupled social–ecological systems as co-evolved, with mutually dependent and interacting social and ecological components and highly uncertain and unpredictable outcomes. This conceptualization of human–environment interactions is useful for food systems, although the links between the social and environmental components may be indirect in many cases.”

Besides the contributions cited in note 9, see also Ostrom (2009), p. 419 et seqq; Young et al. (2006), p. 304 et seqq; Ostrom (2005). Some of the tributes honouring the memory of Elinor Ostrom are, concerning this matter, particularly significant: cfr. Anderies and Janssen (2012).

Cf. for a broad exploration of the subject, Potschin et al. (2016); see also Ruhl (2015), p. 306 et seqq.

Lant et al. (2008), p. 969 et seqq.

Matthews and Huggett (2013), p. 326 et seqq; Krasny et al. (2011), Folke et al. (2011), p. 719 et seqq; Jax (2010), particularly p. 170; Gotts (2007), p. 24 et seqq; Folke (2006), p. 253 et seqq; Rohde (2005), Walker et al. (2004), p. 5 et seqq; Gunderson and Holling (2002). For the inclusion of the point of view of the law in the transdisciplinary debate between the ecological sciences and social sciences, see Monteduro et al. (2015).

Cfr. the acts of the international symposium “Law for Social-Ecological Resilience Conference” held on 17–19 November 2010 in Stockholm, published in 2013 in the journal Ecology and Society (Law and Social-Ecological Resilience, Part I: Contributions from Resilience 2011, Issue 2; Law and Social-Ecological Resilience, Part II, Contributions from Law for Social-Ecological Resilience Symposium Stockholm, Sweden, 2010, Issue 3). Besides the pioneering study by Tarlock (1994), p. 1121 et seqq, as well as in Percival and Alevizatos (1997), p. 25 et seqq, also see Ebbesson (2010), p. 414 et seqq; Benson and Garmestani (2011), p. 1420 et seqq; Ruhl (2011), p. 1373 et seqq; Ruhl (2012), p. 31 et seqq; Voigt (2013), Monteiro De Lima (2013), p. 695 et seqq; Westra et al. (2013), Arnold and Gunderson (2013), p. 10426 et seqq; Barnes (2013), p. 6 et seqq; Cumming (2013), p. 15 et seqq; Armitage (2013), p. 11 et seqq; Garmestani et al. (2013), p. 37 et seqq; Ebbesson and Hey (2013), p. 25 et seqq; Garmestani and Allen (2014), Green et al. (2014), p. 3534 et seqq; Robinson (2014), p. 19 et seqq; Monteduro et al. (2015).

For the debate in Italy, see Cafagno (2007) and Monteduro (2014). For the perspective of sustainability science, see Montini and Volpe (2011), p. 157 et seqq.

Author’s own translation.

The Italian Constitutional Court, in its sentence of 14 November 2007, n. 378, affirmed: “It is necessary, in other words, to view the environment as a "system", considered, that is, in its dynamic aspects, which in reality it is, and not only from a static and abstract viewpoint […] the environment as an organic entity, prescribed, that is, by standards of protection that have as their aim its entirety as well as individual components considered as parts of the whole […] the uniform and comprehensive discipline of environmental heritage pertains to the public interest in primary (sentence n. 151 of 1986) and absolute (sentence n. 210 of 1987) constitutional terms, and must ensure (as EU law requires) a high a level of protection, unwaivable by other sectoral laws. It should be emphasized, however, that alongside unified environmental heritage law other legal interests can coexist, their object being components or aspects of environmental heritage but concerning diverse interests that are under legal protection. In this respect, the environment is "transverse matter", in the sense that diverse interests make demands on the very same object: that of environmental protection and those pertaining to its uses”. The same constitutional court, in its sentence of 13 April 2011, n. 128 and of 12 March 2015, n. 32, affirmed that the “environmental protection” concerns “the interactions and balance between the different parts of the "biosphere" as a "system"” [...] in its dynamic aspect” (Author’s own translation).

Cf. Swannack and Grant (2008), p. 3477 et seqq, p. 3478, where the different levels of life aggregation are organized according to a hierarchy of increasing complexity are called to mind: (1) the cell; (2) the tissue; (3) the organ; (4) the system; (5) the individual organism; (6) the population—living systems composed of individual organisms from the same species –; (7) the community or biocoenosis—living systems composed of organisms from different populations –; (8) the ecosystem—living systems composed of diverse communities that interact with a biotope, that is, with abiotic components represented by a set of physical and chemical factors such as climate, light exposure, the presence of water, soil type and substrate; (9) the landscape, which in ecology is simply a living system composed of ecosystems dynamically interrelated amongst themselves; (10) the biome or eco-region, a system of landscapes; and finally, (11) the ecosphere, that is, the planet composed by different biomes. Each of these levels of organization of biological life can be considered a “living system”, that is, a complex system (open, dissipative, autopoietic, capable of self-organization and self-renewal) that has an autonomous existence and biological relevance distinct from the individual existence of the components that compose the system. The conceptualization that organizes life by increasing levels of complexity is founded on the very principle of “emergent properties”: each time biological life passes from one aggregation level to another that is higher on the hierarchical pyramid, the higher level system exhibits new properties, or original characteristics that cannot be foreseen by observing individual components on the preceding level. The new properties of the higher level living system are not the result of the quantitative sum of the properties of the individual components but of their qualitative synthesis, inasmuch as the emergent properties arise ex novo from the collaboration and close interaction of all the co-existing lower level living systems. Cfr. Jordán and Jørgensen (2012), Russell et al. (2011), p. 2 et seqq; Thomas and Cebrian (2010), p. 380 et seqq; Campbell et al. (2008), p. 2 et seqq; Naveh and Carmel (2003), p. 35 et seqq, p. 37; Lévêque (2003), particularly p. 134. For a transdisciplinary biosociological approach, see Pumain (2006). An attempt at a general theory of “living systems” that transcends the scope of the biological sciences, proposing a heuristic framework that is also valid for the social sciences was advanced in the past by the powerful work of Miller (1978).

See Monteduro (2016), p. 269 et seqq. For a conceptual perspective favorable to the configuration of the environment in the legal sense as a complex “system” of relations, in Italian legal doctrine, see in particular Cafagno (2007) and Farì (2013), particularly p. 3 et seqq e 24 et seqq.

Note that, in the ecological sciences, there are those who have recently proposed an approach that transcends the SES model: namely “anthroecology theory”, on which see Ellis (2015), p. 287 et seqq. Even in the abstract of this essay, the author affirms that “though still at an early stage of development, anthroecology theory aligns with and integrates established theoretical frameworks including social–ecological systems, social metabolism, countryside biogeography, novel ecosystems, and anthromes. The “fluxes of nature” are fast becoming “cultures of nature.” To investigate, understand, and address the ultimate causes of anthropogenic ecological change, not just the consequences, human sociocultural processes must become as much a part of ecological theory and practice as biological and geophysical processes are now”. According to the author (pp. 316–317) “the call to integrate humans into ecology is older than the discipline itself and has been loud and clear for generations (e.g., Darwin 1859; Tansley 1935; Hawley 1944; Odum 1953; Pickett and McDonnell 1993; Redman et al. 2004; Collins et al. 2011). Major progress has been made by theory on social—ecological systems (Redman et al. 2004; Folke et al. 2005; Folke 2006; Hornborg and Crumley 2007; Alessa and Chapin 2008; Carpenter et al. 2009; Chapin et al. 2011; Collins et al. 2011; Levin et al. 2013), social metabolism (Baccini and Brunner 2012; Fischer-Kowalski et al. 2014; Malhi 2014), coupled human and natural systems (Liu et al. 2007), human ecology (Boyden 2004; Dyball and Newell 2014), urban ecology (McIntyre et al. 2000; Pickett et al. 2001; Grimm et al. 2008), agroecology (Tomich et al. 2011; Gliessman 2015), countryside biogeography (Daily et al. 2001; Mendenhall et al. 2014), novel ecosystems (Hobbs et al. 2006), anthromes (Alessa and Chapin 2008; Ellis and Ramankutty 2008), and Anthropocene island biogeography (Helmus et al. 2014). Anthroecology theory builds on these with the aim of going further. To advance the science of ecology in an increasingly anthropogenic biosphere, it is useful to begin with “The First Law of the Anthropocene”: the ecological patterns, processes, and dynamics of the present day, deep past, and foreseeable future are shaped by human societies. Anthroecology theory takes this law as given, and integrates human societies into ecology globally across geologic time through an evolutionary framework of human sociocultural niche construction directed at explaining ecological pattern, process, and change within and across an increasingly anthropogenic terrestrial biosphere. In this way, human societies are integrated into ecological science in much the same way as climate systems, which powerfully shape the patterns, processes, and dynamics of ecology, while also being influenced, but less so, by these interactions”. Further, the author affirms (p. 320) that “for ecologists, the meaning should be very clear. The forces of humanity are now akin to those of climate geophysics or biology and therefore as fundamental to understanding the processes that shape life on Earth as the sciences of climate, soils, or biology. To engage in scientific study of ecological pattern, process, and change as it exists today and for the foreseeable future demands a firm grasp of the human sciences and their deep integration into ecological theory and practice. It is no longer adequate merely to study the consequences of human transformation of ecological pattern and process: Ecology must become a science of their ultimate causes. In the teaching of ecology, humans are generally presented as operating entirely within a biological world, sustained by natural ecosystems, in statements like “humanity is a biological species in a biological world” (Wilson 2012) and “that man is, in fact, only a member of a biotic team is shown by an ecological interpretation of history” (Leopold 1949). Human alteration of ecology tends to be depicted as a recent crisis brought on by modern industrial societies and their rapid population growth, disturbing fragile natural ecosystems, and threatening both humanity and nonhuman nature, with such framing usually accompanied by a call to return to or maintain some prior balance of nature (Rockstrom et al. 2009; Simberloff 2014). As with the seemingly perpetual need for ecology to reject the balance of nature concept, these romantic notions should have no place in ecological science (Cronon 1983; Briggs et al. 2006; Pickett 2013) […] Humans are a sociocultural species living in a sociocultural world on a used planet. It is time to go beyond balances of nature and even fluxes of nature to embrace the “cultures of nature” in ecology. The paradigm must shift. Cultures create and sustain natures. Individual humans act intentionally, but they do so within their social contexts and depend on cultural values, perceptions, and actions (Dyball and Newell 2014; Ives and Kendal 2014; Mace 2014; Medin and Bang 2014). The question is not how to stop “others” from destroying nature, or finding a way to “get back to nature,” but how to engage societies toward shaping nature more beneficially for both humans and nonhumans (Mace 2014; Palomo et al. 2014). Sociocultural niche construction in an increasingly anthropogenic biosphere is neither new nor disastrous, but the perpetual activity of human societies engaged in the intentional cooperative engineering of ecosystems since prehistory (Smith and Wishnie 2000; Ellis et al. 2013b). To incorporate human sociocultural niche construction at the core of ecological pedagogy, the framing of humans as destroyers of nature must transition to narratives of societies as nature sustainers (Chapin et al. 2011). In moving toward this goal, the work of archaeologists, natural historians, agroecologists, urban ecologists, conservationists, engineers, and designers all have much to offer and much to gain. The teaching of ecology has always appealed to a sense of wonder about the natural world. As educators we must build a new sense of wonder and discovery about the “tangled bank” of human sociocultural systems and the diversity of ecosystems they create and sustain together with the traditional ecologies of cultures, cultural landscapes, and cities. By embracing sociocultural evolution and teaching it, current and future generations of ecologists and the public will be better equipped to guide societies toward better outcomes for both people and nonhuman nature.”

Westra et al. (2013), Bennett (2016), p. 55 et seqq. The Encyclical Laudato Si’ of Pope Francis dated 24 May 2015 constitutes a trenchant and passionate testimonial, in its cry of alarm launched at humanity (§ 54 and § 161): cfr. for comment Tracey (2016), p. 207 et seqq.

For a recent framework, Gaffney and Steffen (2017), p. 53 et seqq; McNeill and Engelke (2016), Biermann et al. (2016), p. 341 et seqq; Lewis and Maslin (2015), p. 171 et seqq; see seminal contributions by Crutzen (2001), p. 23 and Crutzen and Stoermer (2000), pp. 17–18.

The founding study is the very well-known one by Rockström et al. (2009a), p. 472 et seqq; Rockström et al. (2009b), Article 32; cf. also Folke et al. (2011), Wijkman and Rockström (2012), Galaz et al. (2012), p. 1 et seqq; Biermann (2012), p. 4 et seqq; Barnosky et al. (2012), p. 52 et seqq; Hughes et al. (2013), p. 389 et seqq. See recently Häyhä et al. (2016), p. 60 et seqq; Newbold et al. (2016), p. 288 et seqq (according to these last authors, in the 58% of the earth’s surface where 71.4% of the human population live, biodiversity loss has already exceeded the planetary limit, having reached levels capable of undermining the capability of ecosystems to sustain the human communities).

These seven were: [1] climate change (CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere <350 ppm and/or a maximum change of +1 Wm⁻² in radiative forcing); [2] ocean acidification (mean surface seawater saturation state with respect to aragonite ≥80% of pre-industrial levels); [3] stratospheric ozone depletion (<5% reduction in O₃ concentration from pre-industrial level of 290 Dobson Units); [4] interference with the biogeochemical nitrogen (N) cycle (limit industrial and agricultural fixation of N₂ to 35 Tg N yr⁻¹) and the phosphorus (P) cycle (annual P inflow to oceans not to exceed 10 times the natural background weathering of P); [5] rate of biodiversity loss (annual rate of <10 extinctions per million species); [6] global freshwater use (<4000 km³ yr⁻¹ of consumptive use of runoff resources); [7] land-system change (<15% of the ice-free land surface under cropland). The two additional planetary boundaries for which the authors had not able to determine a boundary level are: [8] atmospheric aerosol loading, and [9] chemical pollution.

Rockström et al. (2009b), pp 14–15. With particular reference to biodiversity, the authors’ warning even in 2009 was already troubling: “this relatively safe boundary of biodiversity loss is clearly being exceeded by at least one to two orders of magnitude, indicating an urgent need to radically reduce biodiversity loss rates” (p. 15); “the world cannot sustain the current rate of loss of species without resulting in functional collapses” (p. 20).

Steffen et al. (2015). The nine large-scale Earth-system processes remained the same in 2009, but the 2015 study has produced notable updates. The planetary boundary that was called, in 2009, “loss of biodiversity” was renamed “change in biosphere integrity” in 2015: the concept of biosphere integrity includes the conservation of biodiversity but is not limited to it, inasmuch as it means to consider not only the structural impact on the biosphere (that is, on the biosphere as genetic reserve of diversity), but also the functional impact (that is, on the biosphere as a regulator of the cycle of nutrients and the flow of materials, waste and energy through the Earth system). The planetary boundary called, in 2009, “interference with the global Phosphorus and Nitrogen cycles” was renamed “biogeochemical flows” in 2015. The planetary boundary named, in 2009, “chemical pollution” became much broader in 2015, assuming the new name of “introduction of novel entities”: it deals not only with toxic synthetic substances but more generally with all the substances that nature has not evolved to assimilate, for example radioactive materials and nanomaterials. The planetary boundary “land-system change” was assessed in 2015 in terms of changes to surface areas covered by forest, rather than agricultural terrain, owing to the strong impact of forests on another planetary boundary, that of “climate change”. In general, the 2015 study strongly emphasized the interdependence and the interrelationships between the nine macro-processes, which cannot possibly be considered in isolation, but which create feedback effects of various types. Another matter of note from the 2015 study is the fact that some macro-processes (biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows, land-system change, and freshwater use) were assessed also at the regional level, with the thresholds then combined globally. Finally, perhaps the most important change in the 2015 study with respect to that of 2009 is the fact that the authors identified two of the nine macro-processes as “core boundaries”: these are the planetary boundaries of climate change and biosphere integrity. These two planetary boundaries are considered of more importance and specific weight than the other seven, which are influenced by a two-level hierarchy scheme.

Cf. FAO, The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 (a synthesis is available at http://​www.​fao.​org/​news/​story/​en/​item/​326911/​icode/​ and at http://​www.​slideshare.​net/​FAOoftheUN/​how-have-forests-changed-results-from-fra-2015, accessed on January 16, 2016); see further MacDicken (2015). From the FAO’s The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 it can be seen that from 1990 to the present 129 million hectares of forest have been lost, an area equivalent in dimension to almost the entirety of South Africa. While forests constituted 31.6% of world territory in 1990, or around 4128 million hectares, in 2015 this figure decreased to 30.6%, meaning, to around 3999 million hectares. Forests on the global scale therefore continue to diminish while population increases and forests are converted into agricultural land and destined for other uses. Becasue of the rise in world population the average area of forest per capita has in fact decreased from 0.8 ha per capita in 1990 to 0.6 ha per capita in 2015. Furthermore, the percentage of planted forest rose compared to that of natural forest (the latter, in line with the FAO’s approach, includes both areas of primary forest, where there is minimal human interference, and areas secondary forest, which, despite human interference have regenerated naturally); planted forests currently account for 7% of the world’s overall forest area, having increased by over 110 million hectares since 1990. Nevertheless, in the face of such negative data there are some underlying positive trends: the net annual rate of loss in forest areas has in fact slowed down, going from 0.18% in the early 1990s to 0.08% in the 2010–2015 period. During this period, Africa and South America registered the highest net annual loss of forest, with 2.8 million hectares and 2 million hectares respectively, even though the rate of loss had diminished compared to the preceding 5 years. From 1990 to the present the majority of deforestation has taken place in the tropics. To the contrary, the net area of forest has increased in temperate regions, while there have been no significant changes in the boreal and subtropical regions. The forest areas earmarked principally for the conservation of biodiversity currently represents 13% of world forests, meaning, 524 million hectares, with the largest areas in Brazil and in the United States. The FAO finally estimates that between 2001 and 2015 the total carbon emissions from forests were reduced by more than 25%, due precisely to the slowing down of the rate of global deforestation.

Steffen et al. (2015). Concerning the planetary boundary for “land-system change,” the 2015 study proceeded according to the following methodology. At the global level, this has evaluated the area of forested land that is maintained on the ice-free land surface, expressed as a percentage of the potential area of forested land in the Holocene (that is, the area of forest assuming no human land-cover change). At the level of the “biome,” the study considered the area of forested land that is maintained in each of the three major forest biomes—tropical, temperate, boreal—expressed as a percentage of the potential forest area in each of these three biomes. At the level of the biome, the boundary calculation was based on (1) the relative potential of land cover change within each biome to influence the climate system remotely, especially at the global level; and (2) the potential for a threshold within each of the forest biomes in which land-cover change beyond a certain area activates self-reinforcing feedbacks that lead to land-cover change across a much larger area. That being said,, globally, the planetary boundary proposed by the authors is the following: 75% of potential forest cover should be maintained (or approximately 47.9 million km² of the ice-free land surface of Earth, based on areal estimates). This boundary has been constructed as a weighted aggregate of the following three individual biome boundaries. Tropical Forest: 85% of potential forest cover should be maintained (approximately 19.3 million km²). Temperate Forest: 50% of potential forest cover should be maintained (approximately 9.5 million km²). Boreal Forest: 85% of potential forest cover should be maintained (approximately 19.1 million km²). The database used to define the potential area of the forest biomes and that used to estimate the area of forest remaining do not use identical definitions of various forest types or what constitutes a forest compared to a woodland. In using the ESA GlobCover 2009 database [Arino et al. (2012)] to estimate current forest cover, the authors used the 100-40% cover category of remaining forest to define where forest was present in a given area. This category would also include some degraded or partially cleared forests as “remaining forest”, as well as some plantation forests such as palm oil. This category thus probably overestimates the actual amount of original forest cover remaining. This would lead to somewhat high percentages of remaining forest and thus to an optimistic estimate of the actual position of the control variable with respect to the boundary. Aggregating the forest remaining compared to the potential forest for all of the biomes gives a global value of 62% forest remaining. The global boundary is 75% with a zone of uncertainty between 75% and 54%. Thus, the current value transgresses the boundary but lies within the zone of uncertainty.

Point 8, note 5, of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (EAP): “Thresholds associated with nine ‘planetary boundaries’ have been identified which, once crossed, could lead to irreversible changes with potentially disastrous consequences for humans, including: climate change, biodiversity loss, global freshwater use, ocean acidification, the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles and land-use change (Ecology and Society, Vol. 14, No 2, 2009)”.

Monteduro (2014), particularly p. 8 et seqq e 31 et seqq.

Jordán and Jørgensen (2012); for a transdisciplinary biosociological approach, cfr. Pumain (2006). Recently, see Eldredge et al. (2016).

Scheiner and Willing (2011), p. 333 et seqq, particularly p. 334 et seqq: “Our hierarchical perspective makes clear that ecological theory is directed at understanding biological entities at or above the level of individuals […] one way of organizing living systems is as a hierarchy that extends from molecules to biomes. At each level, biological entities (e.g. cells, individuals, communities) interact with matter and energy to form living systems.” In ecology, an opposition has historically existed between holistic guidelines (also in explicitly systematic variants, such Clements’ paradigm of the “superorganism” and Havelock’s “Gaia Hypothesis”, or in less radical versions, such as the Odum brothers’—by now classic—energy) and reductionist guidelines (such as Gleason’s individualistic concept), giving rise to a debate that that has still not been fully resolved; for a reconstruction see Bergandi (2011), p. 31 et seqq and Trepl and Voigt (2011), p. 45 et seqq, as well as Lefkaditou (2012), p. 46 et seqq. An attempt at a general theory of “living systems” that transcends the scope of the biological sciences, proposing a heuristic framework that is also valid for the social sciences was advanced in the past by the powerful work of Miller (1978).

Kay (2000), p. 135 et seqq.

Existence which, although qualitatively different from the individual organism’s life, is nevertheless configured as a form with an autonomous biological significance as a higher level organization of life that transcends the lower levels and results in “complex entities”: this expression is used by Lévêque (2003), p. 134; with specific reference to communities or biocoenosis, see Morin (2011), p. 165; for ecosystems, see Thomas and Cebrian (2010), p. 380; in relation to landscapes, cfr. Naveh and Carmel (2003), p. 35 et seqq, p. 37, according to whom (our italics) “because of their emergent organizational systems properties, landscapes are more than the sum of their measurable components. They become an entirely new entity as an ordered whole or “Gestalt” system, in which, like in organisms (or a melody) all their parts are related to each other by the general state of the whole”. Cfr. also Campbell et al. (2008), p. 2 et seqq.

Solomon et al. (2013), p. 5 et seqq; Russell et al. (2011), p. 2 et seqq.

Swannack and Grant (2008), p. 3477 et seqq, especially p. 3478.

Cfr. on this point Monteduro and Tommasi (2015), p. 161 et seqq.

Cf Pepe (2007), p. 33 et seqq; Maffi and Woodley (2010), pp. 5–6; Cocks (2010), pp. 67–77; Serrelli (2010), pp. 143–148; Petrillo (2012), especially p. 222 et seqq; Agnoletti and Emanueli (2016), Sobo (2016). As Dunn (2008), p. 315 underlines: “As biological diversity is eroded, key elements of cultural traditions, practices and language are lost. Conversely, as cultures and languages are lost, we lose irreplaceable information about the natural world, as well as notions and philosophies of place, time and humanity. Biological conservation and cultural conservation must therefore be considered simultaneously within a ‘biocultural diversity’ framework”. Petrillo (2012), p. 228, adds that “the challenge facing legislators around the world is the introduction of mechanisms aimed at the protection, safeguard and enhancement of the entirety of the biological and cultural diversity present within a community. An only partial approach to the phenomenon of biocultural diversity may likewise result in serious damage to biodiversity [...] in view of the close relationship between the biological and cultural constituents of a given community, it is now unthinkable to want to safeguard biological diversity at the expense of the traditions, cultures, rites, social practices that constitute its vitality [...] to preserve biological diversity without assessing the impact of such actions on the cultural diversity of the territory in which it operates would mean, in other words, to destroy biodiversity even further” (Author’s own translation).

More than ten years ago, on the occasion of World Food Day on 16 October 2004 and followed by the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture coming into effect in the same year, the FAO underlined in a document [FAO (2004)] that modern agriculture has encouraged many farmers to use uniform species of plants or animals that produce high yields, but when food producers abandon diversity, variety and species may disappear along with their respective genetic characteristics. According to the FAO, this rapid decrease in genetic diversity is extremely troubling if one considers that over the last century three quarters of the genetic diversity in agricultural crops have disappeared, and that, of 6300 animal varieties, 1350 are either at risk or are already extinct. The 2004 document concludes by observing that no sooner do regions abandon traditional local food production than food variety is reduced. According to the document, the human species utilizes only 14 mammal and bird species for 90% of its food requirements from animals, and only 4 species—grain, corn, rice and potato—supply the individual with half of its energy from plants; for this reason, besides the number of species, it is essential to also conserve genetic diversity within each species. Subsequently, the FAO, after a period of 10 years [FAO (2015), p. 1 et seqq (introduction by Collette L et al) and 11 et seqq (chapter by Jarvis A et al)], recorded a further deterioration of the situation. According to the FAO, there would arise the necessity of increasing by at least 60%, over the coming decades, the present global production of food to be able to ensure the sustenance of the additional three billion inhabitants on the planet in 2050; on the other hand, over the next 50 years between 16 and 22% of current wild plant species will simultaneously be at risk of extinction. Finally, in the face of the devastating effects of climate change on the sustainability of food systems, it would now be a compelling necessity to safeguard and promote the diversity of the traditional and typical crops in each territory to foster resilience as a key factor in combatting climate change. The FAO again, in a previous study in 2009 on the food systems of indigenous populations [Kuhnlein et al. (2009)], had admitted that technological developments in agriculture over the six decades in existence of the FAO have led to a vast disconnection between populations and their food. Globalization and homogenization have replaced local food cultures; high-yield cultivation and monoculture farming have taken the place of biodiversity; industrial and high input agricultural methods have degraded ecosystems and damaged agroecological zones; the modern food industry has led to chronic diseases linked to diet and other forms of malnutrition. The same study, which analyzes 12 food systems from indigenous populations, has drawn attention to (p. 20) the fact that traditional and local food cultures “contain treasures of knowledge from long-evolved cultures and patterns of living in local ecosystems” and that “the dimensions of nature and culture that define a food system” must be protected against the risk of destruction. The FAO returned to the issue with another document in 2013 [Kuhnlein et al. (2013)], bringing to light how traditional food systems are rapidly disappearing and calling on the international community to protect them: “global human food systems have been created and supported by a combination of the earth’s multitudes of life forms and ecosystems and by human ingenuity, developed and shared over many thousands of years. Today, however, both the cultural diversity and the global biodiversity that gave rise to human food systems are threatened in many places” (p. 25).

Cfr the document entitled “A recipe for protecting Europe’s culinary heritage” (latest update dated 21 October 2013), available at http://​cordis.​europa.​eu/​news/​rcn/​36175_​en.​html (accessed on August 2, 2017) and relative to the project funded by the European Union EuroFIR (“European food information resource network”), with a funding of 12 million euros, finished in 2010. Therein can be read “EuroFIR included traditional and ethnic foods, and in particular on the preparation of dishes closely linked to a country or region. People have often passed on recipes and methods from generation to generation by word of mouth, effectively turning these foods into a facet of cultural identity. Throughout Europe, however, many traditional foods and ways of cooking are at risk of disappearing, due partly to changing lifestyles and habits. It is, therefore, important that traditional foods are documented, because they represent a direct link to our cultural heritage”.

Concerning Italy, one need only mention that the Ministry for Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies has adopted a specific decree (the D.M. of 9 April 2008, entitled “Identification of Italian agro-food products as an expression of Italian cultural heritage”) with which: it recalled the preceding ministerial decree 18 July 2000, concerning the “Elenco nazionale di Prodotti Agroalimentari Tradizionali” (PAT) and the relative decrees relating to the annual revisions (with which, in realization of art. 3, comma 3 of the ministerial decree 8 September 1999, n. 350, have been provided for in the publication of the aforesaid national list of traditional agro-food products); it stressed that Italy being “a custodian of great agricultural and agro-food traditions”, makes “an act of defence of the Mediterranean diet … as the basis for a healthy diet” necessary; it therefore established that traditional Italian agro-food products contained in the list by ministerial decree 18 July 2000, as well as successive integrations “constitute the expression, not only of inventiveness, ingenuity and the socioeconomic evolutionary process of the collective Italian territory, but also of the traditions and cultures of the regions, of the provinces, and generally of the communities that are spread throughout the Italian territory and as such these must be subject to the protection and safeguard of Italian institutions”, as “an expression of Italian cultural heritage” (Author’s own translation). On this point, and also for all the appropriate bibliographical references, besides the other authors cited supra in footnote 4, see the analysis of Strambi (2010), p. 1 et seqq. The “Quattordicesima revisione dell’elenco nazionale dei prodotti agroalimentari tradizionali” (PAT) was approved by Directorial Decree MIPAAF of 5 June 2014. However, these measures for safeguard were not by any means sufficient, such that in April 2015, on the eve of the Expo di Milano, the Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori (CIA) launched through the press the warning that one in four typical and traditional food products (in total, around a thousand foods from Italian culinary traditions) is presently at risk of disappearance: the news in relation to the CIA communication is available at http://​www.​adnkronos.​com/​sostenibilita/​tendenze/​2015/​04/​13/​sapori-antichi-nicchia-prodotto-tipico-rischio-estinzione_​qfyiDsDqEhLMA8O7​BlhpiK.​html, consulted on 15 January 2016.

Besides the recent Italian law of 1 December 2015, n. 194, containing “Measures for the protection and valorisation of the biodiversity of agricultural and food interest”, which is broadly referred to in the Introduction and in the preceding note 8, one need only recall, in the extensive bibliography: Head (2016), Halewood (2016), Kochupillai (2016), p. 19 et seqq; Timmermann and Robaey (2016), p. 285 et seqq; EFSA (2014), Vezzani (2013), p. 433 et seqq; Ministry for Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies (2013a, b, c); Genghini et al. (2013), Santilli (2012), Russo (2012), p. 187 et seqq; Sirsi (2011), p. 493 et seqq; Paoloni (2005). Of great interest, in the extra-legal field, is the volume edited by Gepts et al. (2012). See also Monteduro (2015), p. 57 et seqq; Di Benedetto (2015), p. 99 et seqq; Pierri (2015), p. 451 et seqq.

For a broad synthesis, see Prip (2017), Bowman (2016), p. 3 et seqq; Morgera (2014), p. 983 et seqq; De Vido (2014), p. 803 et seqq; Marfoli (2012), p. 155 et seqq. Cfr. also Gillespie (2011), Ministero dell’ambiente e della tutela del territorio e del mare (2011), Benozzo and Bruno (2009) and Benozzo (2008).

Hamdouch and Zuindeau (2010), p. 243 et seqq.

Contreras Hernández and Ribas Serra (2014), p. 84 et seqq; Bessière and Tibère (2011).

As Strambi (2010), p. 13, observes “the concept of tradition is intuitively linked to that of origin, in a certain territory, in a clearly defined geographical area, where, to be exact, the community in which one came into being exists” (Author’s own translation).

Ramli et al. (2016), p. 207 et seqq; Brulotte and Di Giovine (2016), Tortorella and Traclò (2008), Tregear (2007).

See e.g. Italian Constitution, Art 5 and Art 114.

See e.g. Italian Constitution, Art 118.

See Ruggiu (2014), p. 486 et seqq, particularly p. 490.

Conte (2014), p. 453 et seqq, particularly p. 461.

Legislative Decree No. 42 of January 22, 2004 (Italian “Code on Cultural Heritage and Landscape”), Art 131, para. 1 (Author’s own translation).

Cf Italian Constitution, Art 9, which protects the landscape as a fundamental constitutional value.

Brulotte and Di Giovine (2016), Anderson et al. (2016), p. 2 et seqq; Montanari (2014), Kuhnlein et al. (2009), Sabbattini (2006), p. 647 et seqq; Strambi and Alabrese (2005), Montelione (2000), p. 463 et seqq.

Cf. Italian Constitution, Art 9. Referring to Italian regulations, besides being covered by Art. 9 Const, these techniques of knowledge can come under, in part, the safeguard of provisions for the protection of craftsmanship (protected by the Italian Constitution at Art 45 Const.).

As is known, in 2010 the Mediterranean Diet was included by UNESCO in the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity: on the point, see Colella (2013), p. 583 et seqq. More recently, the Italian Commission for UNESCO has nominated “The Art of the Neapolitan Pizzaioli” for the same list (the news is available on https://​www.​politicheagricol​e.​it/​flex/​cm/​pages/​ServeBLOB.​php/​L/​IT/​IDPagina/​8511, accessed on August 2, 2017).

In Italy, for example, health is protected by the Italian Constitution as a fundamental value in Art 32.

El Bilali et al. (2017), p. 1 et seqq, who state: “Monotonous diets based on starchy staples lack essential micronutrients and contribute to the burden of malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies. Food-based strategies have been recommended as the first priority to meet micronutrient needs. An essential element of food-based approaches involves dietary diversification - consumption of a wide variety of foods across nutritionally distinct food groups - as a way to meet recommended intakes of nutrients. The simplification of human diets associated with the increased accessibility of inexpensive agricultural commodities and the erosion of agro-biodiversity is partially responsible for nutrient deficiencies and excess energy consumption in many parts of the world […] there is a link between biodiversity and food and nutrition security, which includes a focus on dietary diversity […] unfortunately, globalization of agricultural markets and changes in lifestyles are having a profound impact on the conservation and use of these resources leading to their irreplaceable loss. Maintaining knowledge of indigenous communities is relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Indigenous knowledge on how to recognize, cultivate and use local crops is being lost at unprecedented rate. The genetic diversity of food crops and animal breeds is diminishing rapidly. Since the 1980s the need to protect and preserve biological diversity has been a global priority. At the same time, however, it appears clear that the biological diversity of ecosystems cannot be protected without concurrently preserving cultural diversity. By its definition, biocultural diversity means being aware of the close correlation between the loss of cultural and linguistic diversity and loss of biological and genetic diversity, and vice-versa […] The loss of agricultural diversity occurring around the Mediterranean basin is having negative repercussions on the food security and livelihood of populations living in the region. An exacerbation of the genetic erosion of agro-biodiversity due to globalization trends and climate change is reducing the sustainability of local production systems and along with it the ability to safeguard the Mediterranean diet through the continued use of indigenous species and varieties. At the same time, silent cultural erosion is also affecting the diversity of food cultures. Such a phenomenon is undermining also the identity of millions of Mediterranean people whose traditions are so intimately linked to food cultures […] This paper suggests that biodiversity is necessary for dietary diversity and nutrition security”.

See Faber and Wenhold (2016), p. 22 et seqq; Hasan-Ghomi et al. (2015), p. 11 et seqq; Vadiveloo et al. (2015), p. 555 et seqq; Narmaki et al. (2015), p. 722 et seqq, according to whom increasing dietary diversity might be associated with a decrease in oxidative stress and incidence of chronic diseases; Skypala and Vlieg-Boerstra (2014), p. 442 et seqq; Roduit et al. (2014), p. 1056 et seqq, who conclude that “an increased diversity of food within the first year of life might have a protective effect on asthma, food allergy, and food sensitization and is associated with increased expression of a marker for regulatory T cells”; Allen et al. (2014), p. 498 et seqq; Fanzo et al. (2013), Kaiser (2011), p. 62 et seqq; Drescher (2007), Wahlqvist (2004), pp. CRH16–CRH18; Wahlqvist and Specht (1998), p. 314 et seqq, who write that “the maintenance of biodiversity is important to human health for several reasons: (i) a varied food supply is essential to maintain the health of the omnivorous human species; (ii) a range of diverse food sources is necessary to safe-guard against climatic and pestilent disasters which may affect one or more of the food sources; (iii) a diversity of plants and animals may provide a rich source of medicinal material, essential for the extraction of undiscovered therapeutic compounds; (iv) intact ecosystems of indigenous plants and animals appear to act as a buffer to the spread of invasive plants and animals, and of pathogens and toxins, thus contributing to the health of populations nearby; and (v) the ‘spiritual’ values of exploring the diversity of plants, animals and ecosystems in an area appear to have a beneficial effect on mental health, strengthening the feeling of ‘belonging to the landscape’”.

Cf. e.g. Semands (2014), p. 149 et seqq, who states (p. 189): “The right of a person to choose what food she consumes should be considered fundamental;” (2013), p. 173 et seqq. But see the criticism of Wiseman (2015), p. 1299 et seqq. See also Berg (2013).

Chieffi (2015), who affirms the existence of an authentic “right to food self-determination,” construed as the “right of every individual to freely choose for themselves the diet for their own sustenance” (p. 5 and p. 7) (Author’s own translation).

See e.g. Martin (2008), p. 21 et seqq; in rejecting paternalistic approaches, Neto (2016), p. 337 et seqq; from a paternalistic point of view, see Gostin (2010), p. 33 et seqq, in response to Resnik (2010), p. 27 et seqq; in the perspective of a “secondary paternalism”, see Bonotti (2014), p. 31 et seqq.

Ceserani (2016), p. 369 et seqq; Fuccillo (2016) and Fuccillo et al. (2016), p. 1 et seqq; Fuccillo (2015) and Milani (2015), p. 349 et seqq.

Cf. e.g. In the same line Rencher (2012) who states (p. 426): “food choice can be a means of self-expression and self-identity […] through choice of food, people express their views of the world. Health, religion, culture, self-identity, and even politics are expressed by and play important roles in a person’s food choice, and may support some level of constitutional protection to the right to choice of food”. The author points to (p. 433) “the important role that food can take within a religious context. In light of the fact that the Bill of Rights gives particular deference to freedom of religion, food choice may deserve protection as a right because of its religious importance. On the other hand, it is well established that “freedom of religion” does not mean that a person may act or refuse to act for religious reasons and be absolutely shielded from government intervention. To the contrary: while the Constitution protects the freedom to believe, it does not necessarily protect the freedom to act in accordance with those beliefs. Specifically, a person’s choice is protected from government actions that target the person’s religious beliefs, but the same choice may not be protected if the government action only incidentally interferes with a religious practice”. According to the author (p. 430), “the right may also have some connection to the fundamental right to personal liberty”; further (p. 436), “because food is an important part of cultural expression, there may yet be reason to give food choice heightened protection”; finally (p. 437), “food is both a means of self-expression and, at the same time, a means of speech. Because self-identity influences food choice, it is of little surprise that people choose food based on the personal values with which they identify”. In the conclusion (p. 442), the author asks “Is there a right to food choice, and if there is, what level of constitutional protection does the right deserve?”, and answers this question in the sense that “these are difficult questions, and are currently unanswered. Yet, when considering the right to choice of food, the law should look to additional considerations beyond food safety […] Meanwhile, food choice is important for a number of reasons beyond safety, including its impact on health, its importance to religion, its value in cultural identity, and its importance as selfexpression and a form of speech. Furthermore, these reasons compare favorably to established fundamental rights and protected choices. Given these considerations, it may well be that food choice does indeed deserve some level of heightened protection.”

Cf Italian Constitution, Art 30.

Cf de Wit et al. (2015), p. 22 et seqq; Russell et al. (2014), p. 1018 et seqq; Kümpel Nørgaard and Brunsø (2011), p. 141 et seqq; Wansink (2010), p. 313 et seqq.

Obviously, the role of the family, and of parents particularly, in the food education of children cannot lead to a complete denial of the freedom of children to choose their own food style or even worse, to the exercise of choices that are harmful to the health of children. Cf Ouellette (2010), p. 955 et seqq.