the facts arent enough

It seems through the book that lack of knowledge isn’t as big of a hindrance to getting people to change to more ethical diets that convenience. Many people believe that knowledge and awareness in the public of the problems with animal injustice in the food industry will evoke change in the way people buy food. However even with this knowledge, change isn’t a given. Jake was aware of some of the environmental and animal injustice caused by big agri-corperations as explained by Peter Singer and through her prior knowledge, but it hasn’t changed her shopping habits; “Isn’t it a sad thing when are morals become so dispensable” Jake. The argument for Jake and Lee is that they are of the blue collar working class and are so occupied with making a living to support their family, they have little time to think about ethical choices. They also don’t have the money to purchase the expensive food where animals. On the other hand, Jim and Mary are highly aware of the injustice of animal treatment in the food industry, Jim edits an environmental online journal. They both have high paying jobs and have money to spend. But because of their busy lives, they only buy a limited amount of animal friendly foods. “I have so much work that I need convenience, if I had more time I’d probably make better ethical choices” Mary Ann. This evidence shows that in order to create a change in the way we eat, we need to do more than just expose the agri-corperations because people won’t easily change their lifestyles.

Environmental Concerns of Eating Meat

When Peter Singer and Jim Mason visited Jim and Mary Anne Motavalli and discussed their food choices. One of the topics that was discussed was during the visit was what the family's view on eating meat and animal products was. Jim chose not to eat meat more because of the environmental concerns rather than the concerns regarding animal welfare. He was concerned about how wasteful producing animals for consumption is and how damaging the waste products produced by these animals can be. I agree with Jim that these concerns are definitely important. Our environment cannot continue to be treated in this fashion if we expect to be able to continue to live as we do now. The run-off of excess nutrients from animal waste that is not properly treated can disrupt entire ecosystems. In addition, the land and energy spent producing grain to feed livestock could be instead used to produce more food for humans.
This does not mean that we have to stop eating meat entirely. We instead need to find better ways to maintain the animals used for consumption. Using natural food sources instead of artificial ones would be much kinder to the environment and to other people. If cows were allowed to graze normally instead of being fed unnatural corn, that corn could instead be used to feed people or the space used to grow the corn could be used to grow other types of food.
In regard to the waste produced by the animals, new techniques need to be used to dispose of it. Ideally, the waste would be subjected to some sort of treatment to remove excess nutrients that would disrupt the environment as is done with human waste. Doing this could prove to be costly, but there is one method that would work effectively without being being too time consuming or costly. The waste could be pumped back into the ground in a location that would naturally filter the waste as it worked its way through the different layers of soil. Microorganism's found naturally in the soil will break down the waste and use up the excess nutrients similar to the process used by many house-hold septic systems. This is an example of how working with nature rather than against it as we all too often do can be used to benefit us and the environment simultaneously.

Separator post

The posts above concern the reading for Nov. 12: pp. 83-183 from the Singer and Mason book.

My blog post requires us to accept that animals are in fact treated inhumanely (and one could even say unlawfully, although technically the American justice system does not acknowledge such) in factory farms, and that American factory farms are, in general, detrimental to animals, humans and the environment. Although this seems obvious after the portion of Singer and Mason’s book we have read so far, I mention my presupposition in case some people are still resistant to fully agreeing with these findings.

The main problems, then, are how to alter an entire country’s diet so that less meat is eaten, and how to alter the production of meat so that it is less damaging to the environment, animals and humans. These two dilemmas are interrelated – consumer demand drives the factory farms’ desire for increased productivity.

As Singer and Mason have repeatedly acknowledged, increased productivity usually leads towards increasingly unsafe measures within factory farms. Factory farms avoid allowing the animals “amenities” (for instance, shade in 90 degree weather, euthanizing downed animals, anesthetic before painful operations, more effective stunning before being killed) in order to preserve themselves against competing factory farms. In this way, quantity of the meat consumed (and I suppose also quality of the meat’s taste – consider the purpose of malnourishment for making “tasty” veal) is more important than the quality (ethical treatment of animals, proper disposal of waste) of factory farms.

In order to change this, consumers must demand for better quality of factory farms, even if this does mean an increase in food prices and a lesser abundance of meat. Singer and mason realized that “the system seems to recognize animal suffering only when it interferes with profitability” (54). Pressuring for better life conditions for animals with factory farms, society could make it such that profitability of a company’s animal products depends upon their just treatment of animals. We need to ask ourselves why this demand is not more prevalent in society. One reply may be that consumers are not informed about the effects of factory farming. This is indeed extremely true. Singer and Mason acknowledge that factory farms are “invisible to the public” (47). It was at this point they compared factory farming cruelty to zoo cruelty. While I agree that “public disapproval helped persuade” zoos to rectify these cruelties, I think there are some fundamental differences between zoo cruelty and factory farm cruelty which will hinder the efforts to rectify factory farm cruelties. People go to zoos to look at animals. A pleasant zoo experience involves people enjoying what they are seeing, and most people do not enjoy looking at beings suffer. It seems obvious that people would complain and express public disapproval, because they are not reaping enjoyment from the animals’ suffering. On the other hand, a pleasant meat-eating experience is gustatory in nature, during which people enjoy the meat they are consuming. The animal cruelty and environmental detriment necessary to create meat does not affect the tastiness of the meat. Should someone be informed about factory farms and upset enough to consider the experience of eating meat ruined, I should hope that they become vegetarian! But the majority of meat eaters either is fully informed as to the nature of factory farms and just does not care, or chooses to make animals invisible so that guilt will not affect the enjoyment of a tasty meaty meal.

Overall, I am still left wondering what will inspire the masses to act against factory farms. Despite some opinions to the contrary from others in class, however, I do think that it is possible to create great strides for better conditions of factory farms. Extreme measures are not necessary for this to happen (ie. that everyone must become a vegetarian), but as Spira noted, “If McDonalds moves a millimeter, everyone else will move with them” (70). Perhaps Halverson is right, and not much will be gained by making minor improvements in a “fundamentally bad system” (72), but given the present state of America’s dependence on factory farms, I think this is our only option.

The main issue from the first section of this book seems to boil down to the capitalistic way that the factory farms are run. The general theme is that the farmers, whether they are chicken, cow, or pig farmers, they all agree that more humane methods would be better but more expensive. “We can be more environmentally sound if we want to pay more for our food. Right. But what mechanism is supposed to bring about that outcome? Even if Jake and Lee were willing to pay more for their meat in order to protect the environment in Nebraska, how could they be sure- or even reasonable hopeful- that the extra dollars they were spending were having this effect?” (65).

This, I think, is the major dilemma. They go on to talk about major corporations like the fast food industries that took steps to make their businesses and the food that they sell more environmentally sound. However, these steps are small, and although they are on a large scale, they may not be enough. The real changes that have to happen are large changes happening on large scales, changes happening in the way McDonalds and Wal-Mart buy their food. These changes, unfortunately, do not seem to be likely to happen.

These large scale changes would mean that they would have to implement severe changes in the way that animals are treated and slaughtered. This would not only mean that the prices would go up on meat sales. This would then mean that the basic idea of both of these corporations would be in danger. There would be no more ‘Dollar Menu’ not more ‘Every Day Low Prices’. Neither of these institutions is going to risk profits for animal welfare, unless the government declares it illegal first. While the idea of these corporations being pressured by civilians and then forcing change onto farmers seems like a way to avoid the government getting involved it does not seem like it is the true fix, just a band-aid.

Ethical Intervention

It seems that Singer and Mason see the way in which we treat animals in the food industry to be abhorrent, and they provide very disturbing evidence as to why our practices need to change. I agree with the position of Singer and Mason, and believe that large-scale changes are called for. To observe this society, one may come to believe, and perhaps not wrongly, that what this culture values most are material assets or money. Among numerous others, one problem with a value system venerating money or material belongings, prizing these things above nearly all others, is that the values that might, perhaps rightfully, be at the top of the list trickle downward, the whole natural value system becomes skewed, and society malfunctions. I would contend that a group of beings needlessly suffering would be a malfunction of the society, and I believe that the way that we produce food is evidence of this malfunction. Our food is produced in such a way that is revoltingly harmful to the animals, to humans, and to the environment. Singer and Mason seem to call for a change in the way that people consume, and in the way that people produce. They point out hideous wrongs committed in the poultry, egg, pork, beef, and dairy industries. One might ask why all is so awry. The problem could be our motivation. Those in the meat, egg, or dairy industry are motivated to save and earn every dollar possible, which is at odds with seeing to the welfare of their animals, which can be costly. The very mindset ingrained in such producers is that if something is profitable, then it should be done—no further ethical discussion is required, particularly given the lack of laws in this area. Some might be led to believe that as long as it is not illegal, it must be alright. For meat, egg, and dairy producers to run their businesses in any sort of ethical way, either our set of cultural values must be restructured, or there must be some other sort of motivation to get the industry to change. It seems that the easiest course of action to take to change the treatment of animals in the food industry would be to enforce a nation-wide law dictating the minimum standards of animal treatment, as determined by those with scientific knowledge of animals and their behavior. The current ways of the United States in the treatment of animals are anthropocentric, inhumane, rapacious, and intolerable, and if people will not change of their own accord, then an intervention is necessary.

Education is the staple

I already knew that big meat factories produce a lot of runoff which in turn creates Eutrophication, pollution of streams, illness to locals, a whole lot of animal cruelty, etc.. I have already had my world shattered when I read ‘Fast Food Nation’ and already know how egg, cow, pig, and chicken industries get to their final product. Along the lines however I, and society, become sheltered from the process and how rapidly these millions of animals are dying. Not until I read the exact statistics and quantitative data was I completely in shock. Anything from stating the number of turkey’s that are inseminated, which is one every 12 seconds, to the fact that the natural lifespan of a cow is around 20 years, but are usually killed at five years of age. Once the statistics are on the table is when I truly feel the affect. I do believe education is the “best defense against the animal rights attack on the… industry (pg. 47).” Education is the staple in reducing animal cruelty. The reason I say reducing is because no one will ever be willing to give it up entirely. It is a convenience for the public, and no matter what is said and shown to shut this down, the number of people willing to purchase these products overpowers the morality of the situation. For instance, I read the part about the Turkey’s and literally felt like I was reading about something getting sexually abused. However, I finished my reading, went to dinner and got a turkey burger. Awareness is important and can certainly have impact on the nation and these industries. Not only the industry but the nation should be conscious of where the food is coming from and how they are extracting it. McDonalds, which was hard for me to believe, have cleaned up their act. Not as much as I would like, but changes have been made. For instance, McDonalds has funded research aimed specifically at animal welfare and devising farming methods which offer better animal welfare. Without such activism people forget these animals are alive. I would love to be as far along as Europe seems to be, but we are where we are. At this point, the only way to go is up.

Looking at Animal Cruelty Through the Lens of Child Labor in U.S. History

I support Singer and Mason’s avocation of federal law in the indictment of CAFO’s and the market dynamics encouraging them with the example of Child Labor in U.S. history (45, 54). The market in the 19th and early 20th century exploited children because they were profitable, and had little-to-no power politically. Currently, animals are treated poorly for similar economic and legal reasons at the detriment to our environment, health, and morals. Child Labor represents a child working “adult” jobs in factories, mines, textiles, etc. where they are often exploited by their bosses. Factors that influence child labor include poverty, limited education, subjugated workers, and inadequate enforcement of child labor laws. Eventually the labor and reform movements, that often combined the problem of child labor with that of other working peoples resulted in the decline in child labor and Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938.

I believe that the market exploits animals much like it did child laborers through the reasoning of profit and market dynamics. Children workers in the U.S. were generally treated as legal non-entities until the Fair Labor Standards Act was created which defended them from labor-exploitation. Although children are not farmed animals, I believe that their similarity lies in their economic exploitation, their “lack of legal standing” and shared suffering. The pre-child labor laws market exploited children and denied them their health and humanity because it was profitable and legal, just as the current market exploits animals and denies them their sentience for the same reasons. Federal regulations for animal cruelty can be fought alongside rules for agricultural pollution, worker’s rights, and our health; much like children's labor rights were fought alongside rights for other working peoples. Much like the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law defining and enforcing rules regarding animal cruelty would shut down modern CAFO’s in favor of more ethical animal farming practices that respect animal sentience, and the effects of animal agriculture on our environment.

SOURCES:

http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/us_history.html
http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/causes.html

Causes of Our Unethical Treatment of Farm Animals

In the book The Ethics of What We Eat, Peter Singer and Jim Mason expose the cruelty in the way that animals such as chickens, pigs, and cows are treated on factory farms in the U.S. According to the information that Singer and Mason have provided in this book, it seems as though the major reason (or at least one of the major reasons) why this cruel treatment persists despite its immorality is the fact that factory farms are run by profit-driven industries that are more concerned with making money and running the most productive and profitable businesses possible than with ensuring that the animals involved in their businesses’ operations (which are not treated as animals at all but rather as insentient commodities) are treated with care and in an ethical manner.
What Singer and Mason could have clearly stated in their book that would support their effort to expose what’s wrong with the way American factory farms operate is that our capitalist economic system is at the root of the environmental, health, and animal welfare problems that factory farms create. The need to outcompete other meat production businesses and the need for money that capitalism creates are the causes of farm workers becoming “desensitized” to animal suffering and ignoring any innate ethical tendencies they may have to treat animals kindly. These same drives produced by capitalism are what possess farm workers to use environmentally harmful chemicals (e.g., pesticides) that can help increase crop productivity.
Even if we didn’t abolish capitalism or alter the way it functions in our society, we could at least follow Europe’s example by implementing stricter regulations that ban artificial hormones and antibiotics that pose risks to human, animal, and environmental health. Singer and Mason do devote much of their book to discussing the implications of market competition on animal welfare and the environment and the tighter regulations that exist in Europe, but specifically defining solutions to these current problems associated with factory farming would have strengthened their analysis.

The lies on egg cartons!

I think this book, already in the first 83 pages, has taught me more about the food I consume than any other source ever has. I am so happy to be assigned to read this book; I can now be an informed consumer. Because of the “Enter the Chicken Shed” section on pages 24-27 I will no longer buy Tyson meats. However, what I really want to focus on in this blog is how deceiving this market is. Like Jake, when I buy foods in the supermarket, honestly, if I saw two cartons of eggs next to each other and one had a stamp on it reading “Animal Care Certified” I would most likely choose these eggs thinking that these eggs came from chickens that have been raised in a more natural environment, or at least have not been mistreated to get the eggs I am buying. However this is not the case. This stamp actually means nothing. As the book explained it is false advertising and it leads people to believe that the hens that laid these eggs were in good conditions and were well taken care of. But, I now know that this is not true and actually the eggs with this stamp were probably treated no better than the other carton of eggs I didn’t choose. I think this is absolutely ridiculous. How can they even try to claim that these eggs are “Animal Care Certified”? Do they consider having no space to turn around in, breaking legs in wire cages, causing pain to the birds when they chop off their beaks, and starving the birds to get more eggs out of them, care for animals? I would think not. They wanted to sell more eggs by looking like the better producer, but instead of changing their ways to actually become the best producer, they let people just think they are! That’s not only horrible, but illegal. And the best part about it is, instead of changing their ways after being caught, they changed the stamp! Which is still misleading. It now reads “United Egg Producers certified: Produced in the compliance with UEP animal husbandry guidelines.” This could mean anything, but to the unknowing consumer, they will most likely think that these conditions are better, safer, and healthier than other producer’s eggs, when this again is just blatant false advertisement. I think they should not be able to put any type of misleading stamp or packaging to boost their sales, unless they put what those requirements are under that claim. Such as “United Egg Producers certified: This means we starve and cut the beaks off of our birds, give our birds minimal space to live in, and many of our birds suffer from broken or injured legs from the wire crates we keep them in!” I think that would definitely affect their sales, but at least it would be true and the consumers of the world would not be misled into thinking one thing when reality is much different. I think the company would then opt to not have this stamp placed on their carton, and consumers would no longer be falsely persuaded into buying certain eggs.

Singer will only be happy if Humans convert to veganism

Peter Singer is a firebrand. Singer enjoys attacking industry and pushes for small farms. On the small farms he encourages animals to be treated ethically. One example of Singer’s relentless dissatisfaction is exhibited as he takes tours and works at the various farms. He first visits a mass production farm in which chickens had little room to move. He argued that a higher area: bird ratio should have been met. When he visited a farm that provided their chickens with three times as much room as industrial farms, Singer then moved on to attacking the birds’ need for a “natural habitat.” For example, he gives the second farm little credit for reducing their mass output to ensure the chickens have three times as much room as an industrial farm, but instead attacks the absence of natural light within the chicken’s enclosure. When Singer finally does find a farm that allowed chickens access to an open range in which to breed and feed, he complains about chicken’s beaks being seared. At every farm that meets Singer’s expectations of space allotment, Singer presses these farms further, stating that animals are denied of their “natural habitat”. When a natural habitat was provided, Singer moved further to attack other farming practices like putting a ring in the nose of a pig or cutting their tail off; however, even when all of Singer’s criteria are met for “ethical treatment of animals,” he states that farms practicing in this manner (the manner that he prescribes) won’t be productive enough to supply the current demand for meat. To this, he concludes that humans should enact a more vegetable and fruit ridden diet.
Singer asks for an inch only to take a mile. One can only ask what he will demand next. It shouldn’t be hard to imagine that if Singer was to be successful in restricting all meat production to come solely from free-range farming techniques that he would press for complete turnover to vegetarian and vegan food choices. Singer’s quick transition to vegetarianism will be met with a great deal of resistance; however, if he slowly attacked the industry, his radical ideas may become reality. Singer inadvertently has belittled all progress in the industry, and if I was a mass producing farmer I would refuse to partake in the transition. Singer may refute this argument by saying that the consumers choose the trend not the farmers, and will do so by choosing the product that they wish to put on their tables. As this is true with higher end families, those that shop for deals and for easy availability may never move away from mass produced meats.

Upon reading the first part of Singer and Mason’s The Ethics of What We Eat, two main questions consumed my thought the entire time. The first by its nature is directly related to the second but never the less they address two spate issues. The biggest question I had involved consumers and what drives them to act in relation to what they eat and the ethical implications there in. It seems that Singer and Mason feel that this is a vital question that needs answering. Through examining the food consumption trends of the Hillard-Nierstheimer, it seems that to the average American cost and ease are the two most influential forces in pushing them to purchase certain foods. While this suggests that many Americans are concerned about cost both in dollars and time, they are still susceptible to the ethical conditions in which their food is produced. Jake said that the label on the bacon she purchased suggests the producers were using ethical practices. It good enough for her to think that it was in some way more ethically run than its competitors. This was enough evidence to get Jake to buy the bacon, but as the authors point out the packaging is misleading and often a downright lie. What the authors go on to say is if Jake could see past that deceiving label she would be less inclined to buy that bacon and maybe even bacon at all. The authors give a great example to illustrate this point of consumer trends.
On page 47 they give the example of the inhuman treatment animals in zoo’s once had to endure. What changed those practices was the outcry from the Zoo’s patrons. This seems to suggest hearing about the atrocities of animal cruelty isn’t enough; rather people need to see and more importantly feel something in order for them to act. Who can care about a chicken though? We care more about dogs in this country because of the human qualities they possess. We can see and feel when they are happy or sad, but when it comes to chickens their mental state never enters our mind. This mainly occurs because they are out of our mind, on the whole we never interact with these animals and therefore have almost no inclination to view them as having value other than the value we get in eating them. So it seems that as human consumers we respond mostly to what evokes emotion. How can animal rights groups achieve this on a large enough scale? Although the authors don’t say this explicitly I wonder if they discount a free market approach all together. This leads me to the second question that consumed me through out. The authors seem to demonize the free market for the corporate greed it produces but don’t really think twice about the change it can bring about in consumer trends.
On page 75 the authors note an example which serves to answer in some way my question of the role the free market could play in curbing or changing consumer trends. The example of McDonald’s veggie burger being better for the consumer and the environment suggests that there is room for the market to help improve the environment. Erika Frank, a professor at Emory, says the McVeggie burger tastes similar to the regular burger at McDonalds. While I doubt this is actually true, what if McDonalds was to improve the taste of this burger. If people started buying this burger after seeing that it was better for their health and the environment on top of it tasting the same as the regular burger this would force other chains create a similar burger. This may result in an improved environment while utilizing consumer trends instead of trying to combat them!

Separator post

The posts above concern the reading for Nov. 10: pp. v-vii and 3-80 from the Singer and Mason book.

Rauch

Jonathan Rauch lists multiple examples of the benefits of GMOs and I must say I for the most part agree with him. I say for the most part because first and foremost the subject of food distribution will not be addressed by increased food production and a better environment. Unless there is massive development and regime changes around the world the starving in a good deal of cases will continue to starve, or at least not be able to take care of themselves. More food production does not solve the problem of world hunger; it only alleviates some of it. Something these authors in general have ignored is that all these problems take more than the use of an environmental (and occasionally economic) lens. Politics, exploitation, culture, and many other concepts cannot be ignored when talking about these different subjects.

Moving back to Rauch's piece however, there are a few other points he makes which he leaves himself a bit too open on. Regarding the problem of GMOs spreading and becoming invasive that is obviously a risk to consider. Rauch should instead point to examples of GMOs that have been used for over a decade now and have had no ill effects on the environment. Governments will (and do) regulate the usage of GMOs and I have a great deal of faith in science to be able to counter any possible 'invasive' plant they create. Technology and information is rapidly growing more and more. A little side note I was reading said that 4 billion gigs of information was generated last year, which is more than the last 5,000 years put together. Obviously an odd statistic to take seriously, but an interesting notion.

The other argument about the inability for people in the third world to properly use GMOs is also not very strong. Of course they cannot use more advanced forms of farming, but as time goes on, and these countries develop they will be able to. He says it will be hard to teach an 'Asian' (assuming he means East Asian) how to use a GMO, but earlier he says China has done an incredible job using GMOs already. There are a multitude of other arguments against GMOs I would love to get into, but alas short blog spaces.

Detrimental Effects of Ceasing Cattle-Raising: A Trade-Off I am Willing to Accept

Cody offers strong pressure against Tristram Coffin’s argument against cattle-raising. It is true that there are dozens other sources of methane emissions, many of them natural causes, from wetlands, wild animals and termites. However, much of his pressure centers on the high percentage of methane emissions termites supposedly emit. I am not very learned in this topic, but I was interested in learning more after reading Cody’s blog post. Searching online, I did find the numbers Cody spoke of, but I came across further research countering those numbers. Not wanting to risk explaining this incorrectly, I will directly quote the findings which state that “the earlier study [taking place in the 1980s] overestimated the amount of food consumed by termites each year and did not take into account methane absorption by the ground near their mounds, a fact discovered only during field experiments.” Moreover, their researchers determined the total amount of methane emissions by termites globally to be about 2% (12 x 1012) of the total emissions. This more recent study took place in the 1990s (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n17_v137/ai_8988319/).

If true, it seems that these statistics weaken Cody’s argument against Coffin. However, I think it is important to note that Coffin’s argument does not necessarily rest on methane emissions alone. Rather, it is one of many examples of cattle-raising’s detrimental effects on both the environment and humans. Also included in his article were the significant amounts of water and fossil fuels consumed in producing livestock, the decreased animal and plant life associated with deforestation, and the decreased carrying capacity of the increasingly large deserts due to persistent cattle grazing. Just as important, if not more, is the grain wasted on producing livestock which could be used to feed millions of starving people around the world.

Cody does remind us that the environment can be affected detrimentally by natural and man-made sources alike. Regardless, I think it is important to focus on the larger picture of Coffin’s argument. Although reducing cattle-raising may cause some new detriment to our environment, these detrimental effects – at least those proposed by Cody – seem to pale in comparison to the tremendous good it would do for both humans and the environment.

Jonathan Rauch

In Jonathan Rauch’s article he argues that genetically modified foods are the answer to the starvation endemic that is plaguing the world. Only through genetically engineered food can nutrition be provided to save future generations from starvation. He concludes to say that within the next decade or so environmentalist will jump on the band wagon with regarding genetically modified foods as an important tool for future generations. Rauch’s idea is certainly a beneficial one to humanity, but sadly, it is regarded as bête noire to environmentalist groups. Additionally, it is difficult to have an appreciation for such food when you do not live in the country or farmland. Rauch does a good job of discussing the pros and cons both for humanity and the environment. As good as Rauch’s claim appears to be, none of it even touches on the fact that hunger is caused by our inability to hinder poverty and inequality. It is not that we are unable to produce enough food; it is that we produce too much food. Global overproduction is a leading cause of poverty and hunger, and inevitably death. I don’t think genetically engineered crops will help very much, because there are several other problems that need to be fixed first before we should consider a better way to grow more food in harmony with the environment.

Future in Frakenfood

Rauch's essay on the topic of looking to biotechnology to increase agricultural efficiency raises eyebrows yet also raises hopes. He notes that hardships we have gone through, the mistakes we have made with agriculture...yet he also points our attention towards a better future with the use of genetic modification (of at least crops most popular/relied on).
Pointing out our inevitable problems we will face with increased populations (of people and their pets), Rauch seems to have provided a substantial reason for supporting "Frankenfood" production. With decreased/ eliminated tillage and a transgenic crop, we will be able to double/triple food production to meet the demands of our every-growing populations. Less pesticides, herbicides, tilling, and major machinery use will no doubt prove to be positive changes for our environment...but what is not clear enough are the costs to the genetic modification that leads to these decreases.
Rauch acknowledges the concerns people have and the uncertainty that comes along with such transgenic products, but does not seem to delve deep enough into this potentially dark and dangerous reality.
I understand the great potential within biotech but do not believe that means we should immediately dive into this revolution and only answer the problems that arise as they come. This may be a situation where being safer than sorry should be applied. Perhaps limitations, such as those prescribed by the Sierra Club, are too restraining in our hopes to increase agricultural production, but it makes sense to err more on the cautious side when dealing with genetic manipulations between different organisms. The risks are outrageously unpredictable! For instance, perhaps for the first decade crop yields increase significantly, people and pets are fed, and all are happy. Who's to say genetic mutations won't lead to extremely resistant weeds in cross breeding. Maybe a crop (that isn't necessarily a native species for the area where it is farmed) begins to take over adjacent land, crowding out natives, and changing the chemistry, dynamics, and ecosystem roles and ties for plants and animals. Now the plants that were designed to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides, etc. cannot be controlled even by us. Also, just as we have seen (and still do) the relationship between viruses and hosts...antibiotics and pathogens, we may experience a situation where insects and other plants become more and more resistant. Our super genetic modification may lead to the selection for a super genetic mutation in a pest.
Rauch may have plenty of support and examples for his position, but may not have enough to suppress the doubt for risky outcomes and change the minds of millions.

Patience is a Virtue

In Rauch’s article he argues favorably for biotech and genetically modified plants. When you read all of his reasons why we should use them it seems easy to be swayed by the information he is giving you. All the problems of the world, it seems, will be solved by these genetically modified crops. We will be able to use fields that we had ruined in the past and better use the fields that we are using now. This will in turn make sure we won’t waste more land by not reusing over ploughed land. Pollution, due to run off and pesticides, will be all but illuminated and the food crisis will be a thing of the past. Third world countries will be able to use this technology to farm land that was once unfarmable and feed their people.

However, while Rauch brings some objections into the light he does little in the way of addressing them. These plants could possibly pollinate surrounding plants and we do not know what the dangers of these situations will be. He tries to address it by saying, “Those risks are real enough that even most biotech enthusiasts-including Dennis Avery, for example-favor some government regulation of genetic crops” (478). While the government may be able to monitor the first set of plants they will not be able to account for mutations and so constant observation will be needed to insure that the original, ‘safe’ plant is not lost. This will make the plant all the more expensive.

This is also a huge concern that he merely mentions as a side note and then continues talking about other things, but I believe needs to be considered seriously, the capitalistic way these plants will be used. The research to make them cost money, to change your farm to use them costs money, the time to learn about them and to implement them will cost farmers money. How is it then that these will be able to be used in third world farms? He never answers this. Also, suppose we found a way for people to do this cost effectively. Farmers will fire workers, because these plants are so easy to maintain. These displaced workers might start their own farms on lands that we are trying to save with these plants in the first place.

The major issue with this situation is that there is no time for patience. Rauch addresses this pressure because this could be the answer to our crisis and we need and answer now. Also, to make money this needs to happen quickly so that we are the first to perfect it. Capitalism is also not likely to take the safer, less profitable route. But patience is needed to make sure that we are not endangering the environment further down the line by using these plants in our haste to try and fix things now.

Finding a Middle Ground

Michael Allen Fox’s article “Vegetarianism and Treading Lightly on the Earth” is compelling to me in that he isn’t concerned with defending an animal’s right to life – an argument I’ve grown tired of hearing repeated – but rather with the meat consumer’s effects on the environment overall. In particular, I completely agree with his view that people in contemporary society engage in the “construction of selfhood by means of consumer choices” and that overall we ignore the consequences of those choices not only in regard to animal rights but in relation to their environmental impact (497). It’s not that I don’t think that animals have certain rights (indeed, I would argue that factory farming treats animals in morally impermissible ways) but rather that the rights of animals pale in comparison to the immense resource depletion and destruction that a meat-centric diet produce. The destruction of rainforests, rivers, and fisheries is a serious concern that I think is directly related to our food preferences and we should start seeing the consequences of consumer choices as the real problem and not simply the lives of animals as the only morally important issue.

I do have one challenge to Fox’s argument that I think is worth considering. Fox begins by talking about the health of a vegetarian diet and then goes on to defend the view that a vegetarian or vegan diet would also prevent ecological destruction because it bypasses the taxing production and rearing methods that the meat industry uses. But, why is it necessary to create a black or white dichotomy between eating meat and being a vegetarian? I hold the view that eating meat itself isn’t a morally wrong act (we don’t get angry at a tiger when it hunts) but rather that the way we eat meat is morally wrong. It’s our methods that are impermissible, inhumane, and environmentally irresponsible and that advocating vegetarianism is sidestepping an attitude that maybe we should consider changing rather than simply avoiding in general (in fact, people are always going to use animals for food and so it’s our responsibility to not romanticize about a world completely free of meat consumption where this attitude won’t exist). Wouldn’t it be better rather than trying to convert large masses of people to vegetarianism (a goal that seems naïve in my opinion) to consider lessening the demand for meat products while at the same time appealing to government bodies to regulate and improve our current production methods? I think it’s a better option to educate people to not rely heavily on meat and then reform the production and consumption process to become more sustainable rather than trying to defend the view that vegetarianism is the only responsible path to helping the ecological crisis. I think extreme views or dogmatism of any kind are generally misguided and that we should seek a sustainable middle ground.

precautionary principle flawed

The topic of genetically modified foods is a very important and controversial discussion within the environmental realm. Genetically modified organisms can be defined as organisms in which the DNA has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. There are many benefits to GM foods such as the fact that animals can engineered for leaner meat, plants engineered for herbicide tolerance or insect resistance, and bacteria engineered to produce drugs for livestock. This is meant to translate into a product with a lower price and a product with a potential for greater benefit.
However, there are some concerns with GM foods. There are some safety concerns of the following: the direct health effects, the drift to cause increased allergenicity, nutritional effects associated with genetic modification and any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion. Some of the environmental effects include the potentially detrimental effect on greater resistant insects, the new plant pathogens, decrease in plant biodiversity and wildlife and a decreased use of the important practice of crop rotation in certain local situations.
Jonathan Rauch calls upon the Precautionary Principal in terms of food ethics. However, I have some reservations with this argument .The Precautionary Principle has been proposed as a guiding principle that states that when an “activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically." So therefore, in the face of scientific uncertainty, its better be safe than sorry or to look before you can leap.
However, the precautionary principle is flawed because it automatically leads to unwise decisions and unclear actions. I feel as though the precautionary principle can be used to support any position or its opposite, regardless of the strengths or weaknesses. The precautionary principle ignores the risks of not introducing the new technology of genetically modified foods, which could end up being even more severe than the risks of GM foods themselves. While I do feel that a risk assessment is necessary, I do not think that the precautionary principle gives enough thought to this assessment. The precautionary principle seems to be only half of an assessment or the risk half--and is therefore incapable of assessing the true strengths or weakness of GM foods.
I am not claiming that GM crops will end hunger. However, I do think that it could be a short term fix that needs to be taken to ensure that the hungry people now get food. So I would argue that using the precautionary principle here is not an appropriate step and cannot be used to support only one position. I think that using that argument limits Rauch’s essay in that we could use it in a way that says that not using GM foods could be detrimental in terms of not feeding hungry people. This could provide increased food security for growing populations. GM foods are easier to grow and bring higher yields that could feed the millions of people that are suffering from malnutrition. In different parts of the world, this could save millions of lives and needed economic benefits. Which side do we take? Take precaution in environmental and health impacts of altering genes? Or take precaution in not feeding people who we could potentially help? Therefore, the precautionary principle is flawed in that it could go either way and this argument hurts Rauch’s essay.

Frankenfood has Potential, but Isn't Ideal

In his piece "Can Frankenfood Save The Planet," Jon Rauch makes the argument that genetically modified food has the potential to be embraced by environmentalists and societies around the world as the future of agriculture, that can sustain ballooning populations. I must agree with his first point, that agriculture inevitably affects the environment. We have known throughout our history as agricultural beings. In general, I think his piece makes really good points. I think that if it comes down to the desperate situation where we don't have enough food to go around (something I don't really buy: we have enough food, we're just not sharing it globally) to support the world's population, genetically engineered agriculture may be the way to go. As it stands, however, I think that there are objections which should compel us to resist embracing it as the next best thing to happen to humanity since fire.

First, I would argue that genetically modified food may in fact be very different from other foods. This relates to the "conventional" (industrial/high-input) agriculture vs. organic agriculture debate. It has been found that food grown organically has higher nutritional value than food grown "conventionally." I believe that the food created through genetic modification may in fact turn out to be very different from the food to which we are accustomed, which means we wouldn't be substituting our production methods, but instead re-designing our diets. Second, I would argue that genetically engineering crops to be able to grow in polluted or otherwise non-ideal conditions (such as salinized soil) is a technological fix that allows for us to ignore the roots of the pollution in the first place. If we can get away with destroying land because Monsanto will make some corn that can grow there anyway, we have no incentive to not destroy the land in the first place. Third, I don't believe that GMOs will feed the planet. Rauch seems to want to address this, but doesn't fully articulate it. He acknowledges that the incentives for created GMOs are purely economic, and that farmers in areas of the world who most desperately need food most likely cannot cough up the cash to warrant the research creating these GMOs would take. Inequitable food distribution will only be worsened by the universal application of more technology to agriculture, because those with the money to support biotech already have access to food.

Lastly, this is not a personal objection I really have, but I think someone might bring up: GMOs may allow us to manipulate natural limits to growth that would prevent our population from exploding and thus are unethical because they create the potential for even more overpopulation.

Rauch puts forth a number of the different positive and negative possibilities on the topic of genetic modification to crops. I felt that he did not cover all the possible aspects of the genetic modification argument, but did attempt to outline exactly why we need them for continued survival. I believe that he is right in his avocation of genetic modification of crops.

The main point that solidifies Rauch’s idea is the fact that throughout human history, scientific breakthroughs have allowed agriculture to progress; cultivating more from less and using different techniques to get the most out of croplands. Genetic modification is one of those scientific breakthroughs that should allow us a race to make the most of our agricultural lands. The positive effects of this include increased agricultural yields per acre, decreased need for pesticides and herbicides, and no need for tilling or other agricultural tactics that cause environmental damage. Also, Rauch establishes the idea that genetically modified crops would be able to not only exist in areas that current crops cannot live in, but actually change the makeup of the land. He uses the example of tomatoes that have been engineered to have a high tolerance to salt. Not only that, but these plants can absorb and store some of the salt in the ground to make the land more agricultural-friendly. These are all extremely enticing possibilities for the use of genetically modified crops.

On the flipside, the Rauch outlines many of the negative consequences of the GM crops. The most pressing issue that I felt he addressed only slightly was the problem with implementation of the GM crops. As with many new technologies, most notably “hybrid vehicles”, just because they exist and are effective does not mean that people everywhere will either choose to use them or even have access to the. New technologies require a great deal of money to implement; not only to start with, but also when you consider all of the capital already in place that would have to be retired to make room for the new. Just because something is good for the environment, does not mean it is immediately good for individuals. It is a difficult subject considering there are problems not only with the GM crops themselves, but the task of implementing them into widespread use is a daunting one at best. It seems that the issue is much more extensive than just what Rauch outlines, but nonetheless I believe he does a moderate job of explaining the overall gist of the issue.

Neutral Science

I am not sure I understand Mae-Wan Ho’s distinction between bad science and good science. To me it appears that there should only be science because all science should be is simple observations leading to an understanding of our surroundings everything is just applied to science. I’m not sure that I would agree that such observations are good or bad, however if you fail to be objective in obtaining data than I would think that you had failed to have performed a scientific experiment at all. Sometimes an observation can be used towards evil ends such as the ability to split an atom or perhaps much of genetics but that does not much such observations should be ignored or not pursued; that would not be science at all. Science needs to attempt to observe as much as possible; if such observations can lead to horrors than we should realize that as a people and deal with such things accordingly. In my personal opinion an observation in and of itself does not have moral value, however what can be done with that knowledge most definitely does. Just because we are seemingly incapable of making responsible decisions about what to do with the knowledge gained from science does not mean that the science is necessarily “bad science”. I would agree that big business can take advantage of science and harness it for commercial benefit but I would still say that has more to do with the application of observations. It is true that the observations are now being guided(which in some ways does not sound like a very scientific approach) however the observations if unmanipulated should still be neutral, it is the application by big business that may create ethical dilemmas.

The Lesser of Two Evils

Genetic engineering is an extremely controversial subject. There are definite pros and cons to producing genetically modified organisms. Johnathan Rauch holds the belief that, despite the potential cons genetic engineering may present, it will be the strategy that will eventually save us from starvation and repair the environment. He poses compelling reasons for why genetic modification is beneficial to not only humans, but also the environment and other organisms that that inhabit the earth. Rauch gives examples such as how creating Round up ready soybeans and other plants that do not require the soil to be tilled to grow saves the soil from destruction. Such a practice allows the natural underground ecosystem to be restored to land that was once not able to be used due to destruction caused by farming. Creating plants that produce their own pesticides that are only harmful to insects that eat them reduces the amount of harmful pesticides used, which would eventually harm other organisms by being washed into waterways or absorbed into the soil. The major benefit as far as humans are concerned is that genetically engineering food sources likely has the ability to feed many more people on the planet as the production of these plants is greater.

All of these examples make genetically modified organisms seem like our magical cure for many of the problems in the world. Rauch does a good job in pointing out that it is not a cure only one of several treatments that should be used together to correct the problems. He addresses some problems that may arise from the production of genetically modified organisms such as the creation of "superweeds" that can grow in any environment and will out compete any natural plants. What Rauch fails to address is some of the greater costs that may arise from genetic engineering. Mae-Wan Ho addresses the major concern that genetic engineering can lead to the accidental creation of new strains of bacteria that are antibiotic resistant. If this occurs with a particular pathogen and we cannot treat it, it is possible it could wipe out a large portion of the human race and we would be left defenseless.

We know very little about what introducing foreign genes into the genome of an organism does to that organism, which is a problem in itself, but we do know that the occurrence horizontal gene transfer, "the transfer of genes to unrelated species" (489)does increase in organisms that have been genetically altered. This could have horrifying side effects not only for humans, but for entire ecosystems. It is a case of the lesser of two evils. If we do not use genetic engineering people may starve if we cannot utilise other ways to increase food production. However, if we do continue to use genetically modified organisms we may breed a pathogen that could decimate most of the human race. It is wise to postpone using genetically modified organisms until we are certain that they do not have the potential to do more harm than good.

Cows or humans whos the bigger environmental burden?

Tristram Coffin makes validated claims on the environmental impact associated with raising extensive amounts of cattle, but are his environmental claims alone enough to battle the beef industry and win? Coffin wants cattle to cease being consumed, but many of the points that Coffin makes are only attacks on the industrial management of cattle. For example, Coffin states that over grazing and overuse of the land has led to desertification and deforestation. He goes on to state that the main cause of desertification is “overgrazing of livestock, over cultivation of land, improper irrigation techniques, deforestation.” Every one of these resulted from land mismanagement by the human race. Humans control the number of cattle in a given space, so they regulate herd density and ultimately the amount of land being grazed.
Coffin faults cows for their methane emissions. Cows, like other animals, including humans, have digestive byproducts of methane gas. The story is much the same for termites. Termites are responsible for at least 1/5 of the biomass on this planet. Estimates state that Termites contribute just as much, if not more, methane to the environment as cattle; 1.5 x 1014 grams (1.5 Million tons) or 30% of total atmospheric methane. Let us look at the world in the absence of human farming. We will call it planet Y. The earth is covered in forests and diversity in the animal kingdom is high. Trees are constantly falling and new are growing. Animals are eating their bounty and living without the fear of humans. Here we have a dense forest which is covering at least half of the deserts and farmlands of our current planet. Since these forests cover about 1.5 times as much land as current forests do, 1.5 times more wood and plant biomass must be decomposed. Thus, the termite population is also 1.5 times as large as planet Earth’s termite population. Termites, therefore, are responsible for releasing up to 45% of total atmospheric composition. Also, planet Y has many more animals (as a result from absence of deforestation and desertification) and, as was noted before, these animals will also have an atmospheric methane contribution. The contribution may be small on an individual level, but may account for a great deal when amassed. Here we arrive at a very low estimate that 20% contribution of atmospheric methane comes from extra termites (15%) and extra animals (5%). On planet earth, cattle account for this missing 20% methane that is seen on planet Y. Therefore, the niche which cattle now occupy was the niche which once belonged to the termites and animals that humans have already removed from the planet through deforestation and desertification. Who is the bigger burden; the humans allowing all the above to go with minimal check or the cows who only do what is needed to survive?

A future of genetically engineered food

Rauch impressed me with his theories on the benefits of genetically engineered food and he presented some compelling examples to back up this theory. The problem is, no matter how many benifits this method offers, I can't help but fear the consequences that loom over us if we do adopt this genetical engineering. Rauch, in his listing of consequences, does not mention the threats they could pose to human health. He discusses them as possible environmental nuisances and the possible introduction of superweeds or other invasive types in the wild. He fails to discuss the antibiotic resistance they may carry, or their ability to break down our defense mechanisms, or anything like that. Isn't it humans that we are ultimately looking out for?
He admits that genitical engineering is a band aid and not a magic bullet. This portion confuses me because it could make people really sick, and mess with our internal structure to such a degree that we would never be the same. I can't see how he can push for something that would not be a long term solution at the risk of human health.
I also feel the need to ask something about this method. If our problems originated from a straying from the natural way of doing things (hunter gatherer), aka the starting of agriculture, then doesnt it ring a little bell that it might be a bad idea to stray even further from the natural way, by completely controlling the growth and production of food? What if this takes us so far from the "natural way" that there is no recovery or returning to a way that worked for so long?
I like the idea of the Precautionary Principle, i guess. If its going to happen, then at least "prove" that its benign. I even would take the "no-till without biotech" approach even though Roach appeared to dismiss it as too expensive. If we can find money for genetical engineering, then we can find it for that, rite?
Near the end he uses the Chesapeake Bay watershed success story to come at environmentalists for putting off the use of genetical engineering out of fear, and basically says "all that good would be undone if we did it your way". To this I must ask him if he is so sure that every case would be successful. ok thats lovely, it worked, but that doesnt ensure anything for the future of genetic engineering.

Is world-wide vegetarianism possible?

I think both pieces by Coffin and Fox had wonderful, interesting, and motivating ideas. I never knew half of the impact cattle-grazing and the meat industry had on the environment. I knew most of the conditions of the cattle or other animals may not be top notch, but I didn’t realize the horrible impact the meat industry, and the meat eaters themselves, are having on the environment. What I found most moving was the fact that half of the world’s grain is fed to livestock, while millions of Americans go hungry. Also, the amount of grain that is grown to be fed to animals could feed over 400 million vegetarian humans for a whole year! What I find most interesting is that these facts are so unknown to the population. Although I found these facts moving, and certainly important, I do not see this information making any kind of significant impact on the ways of the people throughout the world, for two reasons: (1) no one really knows all of these facts, and (2) the small number that do, either don’t care enough to change, or if they do change, don’t make enough of a difference to matter. By this I mean that, if I let my father and brothers read this article, they would say, “that’s horrible.” Then go make a steak dinner. They wouldn’t change their ways simply because the grain that was fed to that cow, could have fed many more humans. And although I find this incredibly interesting and I do care, I am probably still going to eat my turkey sandwich.
Therefore, I propose that although the information giving, and calling on people to change their eating patterns may influence some (very few) people to change, I think in order to make an impact that’s worth while there needs to be major changes in regulations and laws. For this reason, I don’t see it working. Unless the government forbade any meat to be sold in supermarkets, enough people are not going to become vegetarians. They simply will not change, unless they are motivated enough by society, or unless they are forced to by the government. And frankly, there is too much money in the meat industry for the government to enforce vegetarianism on all of America. So therefore, if it is up to our own individual choice to become a vegetarian, even given all of the wonderful reasons presented in these two pieces, sadly,I don’t see it ever happening.

Separator post

The posts above concern the readings for Nov. 5 by Rauch, Ho, Coffin, and Fox.