Gary Comstock’s Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods offers an argument for genetic modification of crops and if it is a process that is morally justified. Genetically modified crops are “derived from microorganisms, plants, or animals that have been manipulated at the molecular level to provide them with traits that farmers or consumers desire.” (Comstock, 1) An important thing to note here is that these manipulations include foreign genes, that could never be obtained naturally by the plants. Comstock offers his perspective on this modification and how ethically justified it is.

The first argument presented in the debate on the ethical objections to GM is the possibility of harm to humans or other living things. He uses three ethical principles in this analysis, rights theory which states that we treat humans as autonomous and not as a means to an end. Utilitarian theory which says we must act in ways that maximizes happiness and minimizes consequences. Lastly, virtue theory which states actions must be justified as if we act as a just, fair, and good person. He says that in a debate of consensus or compromise we still might reach an unjust solution in that we cannot rely on it to always provide the ethically sound and morally correct argument.

Comstock then turns to analyse the ethical issues that are involved. He introduced Extrinsic and Intrinsic objections and says that it is critical that we separate these two in the discussions of ethics. Extrinsic objections focus on “the potential harms consequent upon the adoption of GMOs”  (Comstock, 5) these are the anticipated results that may or may not come about but make the argument that the possibility of them coming about should give enough reason to abandon GM technology. Comstock offers his opinion, that these are real concerns which require serious responsibilities however, he does not think that this is a significant enough argument to implement a permanent ban. He then offers intrinsic objections in which he says are more valid in defending a permanent ban, intrinsic objections “allege that the process of making GMOs is objectionable in itself… the “unnaturalness objection.” (Comstock, 5) But then he continues to point out this is contradictory to a lot of other research in agriculture and would be harmful to terminate all of it. Comstock offers a couple ways to measure harms but ultimately ends up concluding that we do not have the capacity to conclude that the harms will outweigh the benefits.

Comstock offers a reason for why we care so much about genetically modified food. It is a simple explanation that simply says we are cautious about the things that we put in our mouths. It is a simple yet rational concern, he goes on to give another good point that the food we have is working for us and what do we have to gain from changing it. Comstock understands the importance and gives understanding as to why humans ultimately care so much, this in my opinion assigns moral significance to it. If he acknowledges the importance of human choice in what they eat we need to be able to give this ability to everyone.

Comstock concludes with the claim that it is ethically justifiable to pursue genetically modified crops and foods. The benefits will outweigh harms, in terms of human rights the people of various countries can choose to adopt or not, and lastly “encouraging discovery, innovation and careful regulation.” (Comstock, 15 )

I agree with Comstock and his approach on this issue, however, I think that he is missing a ethically important point in this debate. When we speak of theories of Contractarianism where moral rights come about from what is agreed upon, which I think he uses in his argument. But also his Utilitarian approach, where he is looking for the better off solution. In these scenarios the minorities and oppressed can and do lose out on their opinions and regulations are imposed on them instead. Comstock touches on this briefly with his analyses of religion and minority groups however, his argument doesn’t breach the scope of the problem and he still misses the issue of ethics of imposing GM foods on them. Comstock offers an opinion and describes many reasoning for why people care and should care, what we eat and what we let our kids eat is important. It would be ethically unreasonable to then take away the options for minority groups based upon a majority.

Comstock, Gary. “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods.” Food Ethics, 2010

Alison

One of the readings assigned this week was “Ethics and Genetically Modifies Foods,” written by Gary Comstock. In this article, Comstock states various reasons why a person may argue for or against the production of genetically modified foods. All of these reasons he says can generally be placed into one of four intrinsic categories: playing God, inventing technology with the potential to change the world as we know it, neglecting to respect the individuality of a species, and objectifying the living (6). Comstock is debatably able to negate the arguments presented in each of these four categories. I, however, am hung up on the last, which Comstock writes as “To engage in ag[ricultural] biotech is to commodify life” (8).

To be specific, Comstock mentions that genetically modifying our food for the purpose of higher nutritional value would be to reduce it down to an object to be used by humans (8). This would mean that living beings (other than humans) serve no other purpose than to sustain us. He mentions, however, that this principle could be applied to many components of our everyday use of agriculture (8). Is the breeding of animals (such as chicken and cows) for the sole purpose of slaughtering them for food also reductionism? Comstock seems to believe this is reason enough to claim the “commodify life” argument as invalid, as do I. However, I would like to present a separate reason as to why this logic is unsound.

While Comstock focuses on applying this principle to all agricultural practices, I would like to argue that genetic modification does not necessarily reduce the value of living organisms. Although many genetically modified organisms are altered for sustenance purposes, there are some cases where they are not. For example, in the article, “Use of Bioluminescence for Detection of Genetically Engineered Microorganisms Released into the Environment,” written by Shaw, Dane, Geiger, and Kloepper, a bacterium was modified to track its spread through the environment. A strain of the bacteria Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris was genetically modified to bioluminesce, or glow (267). This bacterium is known for causing black rot in certain plants, such as cabbages (268). Using this method, researchers were able to test the bacterium’s perseverance as well as the spread of its infection (269-270). In my opinion, it is difficult to claim that this study is immoral under any of the four categories mentioned above, save for possibly religious grounds.

One could claim this study was playing God, which could be reason to object the genetic modification of any organism, including bacteria. However, I would like to reiterate the need for a universal reason to reject genetically modified products. Certainly, not everyone believes in the same God as everyone else (if they believe in a God at all), therefore I contest that the “playing God” argument is not sound.

One may claim that this type of scientific study is merely permissible. It is only the genetic modifications on food for the sole purpose of nourishment that should be off-limits. However, if a person would like to argue against the use of genetically modifying technology, they must be able to state that all genetic modification is immoral, including its use in scientific discoveries (in my opinion). Furthermore, the results of this study may assist in finding a solution for this black rot infestation, which would benefit both the plant and those that eat it. In other words, there seems to be no disadvantage to the use of genetic modification in this study for plants or humans.

Leah

Works cited

Comstock, Gary. “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods.” Food Ethics, 2010, pp. 1–20., doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-5765-8_4.

Shaw, Joe J., Dane F., Geiger D., KloepperJ. W. “Use of Bioluminescence for Detection of Genetically Engineered Microorganisms Released into the Environment.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology, vol. 58, no. 1, 1992, pp. 267–273., doi:10.1128/aem.58.1.267-273.1992.

With decades’ efforts, the company AquaBounty finally got the approval of introducing genetically modified Atlantic Salmon to the Canadian market. The introduction of genetically animals has always been controversial as people worry about its safety and possible impacts on other species. The current market performance indicates that genetically modified Atlantic salmon can be a good choice to increase the productivity and reduce pathogens and parasites, but the raise of genetically modified Atlantic salmon might avoid disturbing the ecosystem and the company should offer customers the knowledge of such genetically modified animals.

The advantages of genetically modified Atlantic salmon lie in its fast growth and low level of pathogens and parasites. In order to increase the productivity, “AquaBounty’s salmon also contains a gene from the ocean pout that makes the salmon produce the growth hormone gene all-year-round” (Shakeri “AquaBounty”). With this gene, AquaBounty’s salmon can grow much faster than conventional salmon, which is beneficial for satisfying the huge demand in the market. Meanwhile, genetically modified Atlantic salmon doesn’t contain certain pathogens and parasites in traditional salmon, which makes the food healthier and safer for customers, particularly considering that some dishes don’t fully cook salmon. Compared with traditional salmon, genetically modified Atlantic salmon has its advantages and is more suitable for the market as commodities. Just like how humans train and raise wild pigs and chickens and then turn them into farmed animals for the large-scale farming, it is unreasonable to simply deny genetically modified animals without giving it a trial. In order to satisfy the increasing market demand, humans need more advanced technologies to produce food on a faster and safer basis. Such technologies can satisfy humans’ needs and support the increasing population.

Nevertheless, even though genetically modified animals should be given a trial in the market, the raise of such animals must strictly stick to ethical standards. First, when the technology changes the gene of animals to increase the productivity and reduce parasites, there should not be side effects in the genetic level to influence its nutrition and even cause certain diseases. Genetically modified animals must be tested safe and equally nutritious before introducing them to the market. Just like AquaBounty, companies should spend a long period to develop the technology and test its security, which might need decades. Also, related governments and market regulators should test the security of genetically modified animals seriously before approving the introduction. Second, the raise of genetically modified animals must avoid disturbing the ecosystem. Genetically modified animals should be raised in a certain region and get separated from other species. AquaBounty takes the strategy to make all salmons female and sterile so that those fish will not threaten the natural ecosystem. It is essential to guarantee that genetically modified animals will not threaten other species in the natural ecosystem nor reproduce without the humans’ control. Third, customers must be offered the knowledge of genetically modified animals, including both its advantages and possible disadvantages. Customers should be offered the right to acquire basic knowledge to make their own decisions of whether to purchase or not. Hiding truths will only increase oppositions and doubts of the quality and security of genetically modified animals. In order to let the market and customers fully trust genetically modified animals, honesty and frankness are crucial.

In conclusion, genetically modified animals should be given a chance to enter the market and check its performance. Before denying genetically modified animals, it is necessary to let genetically modified animals prove themselves as qualified commodities. However, related companies must cherish the opportunity and operate on an ethical basis. They must be honest, responsible, and careful enough to avoid disturbing the natural ecosystem and offer customers enough knowledge. It is the only way to acquire trust from customers. Otherwise, genetically modified animals will suffer great opposition and suspicion, together with the inherent controversy related to their safety.

Works Cited

Shakeri, Sima. “AquaBounty Has Sold Tonnes of Genetically Modified Atlantic Salmon In Canada.” Huffington Post. Aug. 8, 2017.

-Kaize

In this chapter, Gary Comstock considers whether the pursuit of genetically modified crops and food is morally justified. For what are genetically modified products? It is extracted from microorganisms, plants or animals to provide the characteristics that farmers or consumers want. (1) His first consideration is the inherent opposition to genetically modified products because he considers that the production process of genetically modified organisms is offensive. Because as a normal person, I will always show my fear of such research that challenges nature, and I am also very worried. This also includes worries about scientists. The most important thing is the challenge of disseminating complex issues. When the media transmits information to the public, we always consider its bias. So the author introduces three secular ethical traditions here: The right theory believes that we should always treat humans as autonomous individuals, not just means to achieve ends. The utilitarian theory believes that we should always maximize good results and minimize bad results. The virtue theory believes that we should always act in the way of a just, fair, and kind person. (4) Repeat the experiment in accordance with the third principle. If all three principles can reach the same conclusion, then we have good reason to believe that our conclusion is morally reasonable. He believes that these opponents have no legitimate basis, that is to say, genetically modified products do not have moral problems in essence.

He then considered external objections to genetically modified products, including those based on the precautionary principle, which focuses on the potential harm that may be caused by the use of genetically modified technology. From my understanding, sometimes the precautionary principle is more like a fuss because this kind of psychology makes people very sensitive to negative information. Moreover, he mentioned that a person with a negative view of genetically modified foods will be more influential than many people with a positive view. (10)He thinks these worries have their own reasons. However, this is not a reason to completely abandon genetically modified products. In fact, the precautionary principle has promoted the supervision of genetically modified products to a certain extent, and they require careful development of genetically modified products under proper supervision.

Finally, Comstock put forward a positive case of genetic modification technology he supported. It is based on three considerations: the right of people to choose to adopt genetically modified technology; the balance between the possible benefits of genetically modified technology and the harm to consumers and the environment; and the wisdom to encourage discovery, innovation and careful supervision of genetically modified technology.

In general, genetically modified technology will become more and more mature as technology advances. In fact, the author has a very mature understanding of transgenic technology, and his views are also very directional, which makes me worried about transgenic technology seem to be persuaded. The increasingly widespread application of genetically modified technology and its results has made it possible for many difficulties and problems faced by human society to be alleviated and resolved to a certain extent, and people are excited because it can bring welfare to mankind. People will also worry about the harm it may bring to us. Therefore, genetically modified technology is both danger and opportunity. Therefore, supervision is the best preventive method for people to adopt this new technology because once the technology is commercialized, it will face the health of tens of thousands of lives. As we face the food crisis today, genetically modified crops have brought us hope for sustainable development. I have a small worry that the author has considered almost all aspects of genetic modification technology, but she did not point us to the future development direction of genetic modification technology. For example, if cloning technology develops in the direction of the war, I think it will have a catastrophic impact on people.

-Linfeng Xie

Work Cited：Comstock G. (2010) Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods. In: Gottwald FT., Ingensiep H., Meinhardt M. (eds) Food Ethics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5765-8_4

There are a lot of genetically modified foods coming into the market. But many consumers are against the production of genetically modified food because people think that the production of genetically modified food is not ethical. The Comstock’s article pointed out three ethic about GM food that “the right of people in all countries to adopt genetically modified technology (human rights), weigh the advantages and disadvantages between consumers and the environment (utilitarian), and encourage discovery and careful supervision (virtue)” (Comstock, 16). If we act responsibly and carefully, the production of GM food is ethical. As far as I’m concerned, I think that from a utilitarian point of view, GM food will bring a great blow to other agricultural producers and may cause poverty in rural areas. Such behaviour does not bring the greatest happiness to farmers in rural areas but causes farmers’ losses, which is not in line with the concept of utilitarianism. And it is very difficult to achieve the prudent supervision of GM crops, because if the regulator takes bribes, then the regulation will not work, which may also harm the interests of consumers. It’s hard to make sure that everyone involved has good virtues and the right values. So, I think it is not ethical to develop genetically modified food to a certain extent.

I think GM food will have an impact on developing countries or agricultural countries. The rise of genetically modified food will have a great impact on local food crops. This will lead to the disappearance of native species and the decrease in farmers’ income. Ultimately, it may affect the sustainability of local food. At the same time, it may also destroy the stability of nature, because it changes the genes of plants and harms the diversity of plants. The development of genetically modified food will reduce the interests of local farmers. And it will increase poverty in rural areas that make local food unsafe. The economic backwardness of rural areas makes farmers lack more advanced technology to grow agriculture, which also leads to the reduction of non-genetically modified food. Development of genetically modified food which ignoring the interests of farmers, such behaviour is not in line with ethics to a certain extent.

Comstock said that scientists need to have the right values to research in order to make the public trust the research. But I think after scientists develop genetically modified foods, the technology will be bought by many companies. Companies are all in pursuit of interests because only in this way these companies can compete with other companies and survive in the market. But it’s a question of whether these companies will strictly follow the steps of scientists to develop. If the company does not have the right virtue, it will cause market distortion. In my opinion, these aspects are very difficult to regulate. There is no guarantee that every company has the right ethics, which may lead to the distortion of GM crop development.

In my opinion, it is difficult to unify the three ethics mentioned by Comstock, and these three ethics ignore the interests of farmers, so I think the development of genetically modified food is not ethical. I think proper research can help the development of a country, but it needs to be symmetrical with the information of consumers so that the public can trust scientists. At the same time, we need to pay more attention to the economic development of rural areas, rather than ignore it. Helping the development of rural areas will also accelerate the development of the country. In this way, happiness can be maximized that is in line with the utilitarian theory.

Yiyang

Comstock, Gary. Ethics and Genetically modified foods.

https://philpapers.org/archive/COMEAG

Gary Comstock posed some very intriguing points in his argument for genetically modified food products. Specifically, his argument on the grounds of religion and “playing god”, as well as the utilitarian consideration of balancing the benefits and harms of producing genetically modified food (Comstock, 2010).

Comstock acknowledges the argument that genetically engineering plants and animals for the benefits of humans could be considered as playing god and subjecting nature to an unnatural process but disagrees with the validity of the argument. His reasoning is supported by the existence of more than one interpretation of God. In my opinion, this thinking is difficult as it portrays a westernized ideology of god with the assumption that all humans share this belief. Comstock points out that even within one religion the perspectives vary on this topic and are inconsistent (Comstock, 2010). For others who do not hold a belief in a God or a higher being, this argument could not convince them otherwise. An argument over the ethicality of genetically modified food in relation to religion is made which can also be connected to equality and rights of people. Comstock looks to explain how genetically modified food can have major benefits on the lives of humans, such as reducing rates of starvation and insufficient nutrients. Taking on the endeavor to solve problems such as the ones mentioned is arguably virtuous and, in some contexts, it can be argued that a God would do the same (Comstock, 2010).

Comstock makes an argument that by continuing the use and development of genetically modified food, the benefits are outweighing the harms (Comstock, 2010). Similar to the arguments made in the previous paragraph, the benefits of genetically modified food are a possible solution to starvation and world hunger (if distribution is fair among equality of people), and have provided entire populations of people with nutrients essential to a healthy life that they were not able to obtain prior to genetic engineering. The Golden Rice project is a largescale example of successful genetic modification that improved the lives of millions by introducing a needed precursor in the rice for the body to develop vitamin A (“The Golden Rice Project”, 2009). From an ethical standpoint, if the process is completed with care and virtue, using genetic engineering to better humanity should be accepted.

Humans have been modifying nature right from the beginning of humanity. We artificially select plants and animals with desirable traits and breed them in order to isolate those traits. In a sense, this could be considered genetically modification but over a longer period (generations). For example, most fruits and vegetables we see at the grocery store did not exist 4000 years ago, but through careful cross-breeding and artificial selection, we can now by 10 different varieties of apples or “seedless” watermelons. This isn’t to say that I personally agree or disagree with genetic modification, but at this point in human history, why does the use of innovative technology to assist our efforts of genetic modification change our entire perspective on its ethicality. If we look at this idea from the perspective of Comstock, I would be inclined to believe he might agree.

References –

• Comstock, G. (2010). Ethics and genetically modified foods. In Food ethics (pp. 49-66). Springer, New York, NY.
• The Golden Rice Project. (2009). Retrieved 12 October 2020, from http://www.goldenrice.org/

AquaBounty has been selling genetically modified salmon since 2017.¹ This salmon grows faster and requires less food which puts them in the market sooner.¹ Moreover, they are not harmful to the environment as escapee salmons are sterile and incapable to survive in saltwater, rendering them harmless to the natural ecosystems.¹  Lastly, these modified salmon pose no greater risk to human health than regular salmon.¹  With all these benefits, one may have no problem with genetically modified salmon as they are quite similar to regular salmon. Due to this reason, AquaBounty is not required to label the salmon as genetically modified; it is solely up to the retailer’s discretion.¹ What is the ethicality behind this? In this short blog post, I will analyze whether AquaBounty’s genetically modified salmon should be labeled or not under some aspects of Comstock’s Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods (2010).

Advocates for Mandatory Labelling

Biasedly, I would prefer AquaBounty to place a mandatory label on their genetically modified salmon. Just like all ingredients, vitamins, and fats are labeled under the nutritional value sticker, I would like to know how the salmon was grown. This is regardless of whether it is good, bad, or neutral for my health. It is my body and I would like to make choices in knowing what’s going inside of it. Moreover, I would like to know if the production of the salmon results in social inequalities? Are the workers being treated fairly? Are there individuals’ beings financially marginalized due to this new way of salmon farming? This background knowledge and transparency about my food provide me autonomy as I choose to decide what I want to eat.

I support my mandatory labeling argument with the three secular ethical traditions that Comstock uses: the rights theory, Utilitarian theory, and virtue theory.² Comstock states that if these three traditions favour the same solution then that outcome is “morally justifiable” (4).² Here is a brief description of the theories and how they support my argument:

Rights Theory

This theory states to always act in a manner that results in treating humans as autonomous individuals.² As mentioned previously, by labeling the fish as genetically modified, one gains autonomy as they are now aware of what is going inside their body. It results in better decision making and doesn’t make it seem like we are guinea pigs being tested on.

Utilitarian Theory

This theory states to act in a way that maximizes aggregate benefits and reduces aggregate harm.² This theory is somewhat biased as benefits for some, may be harms for others. Again, since I am the author of this post, I will state the autonomy of an individual through knowledge is a benefit. Thus, labeling the genetically modified salmon increases the aggregate benefit. For AquaBounty, however, if labeling ends up in fewer profits than it may not satisfy the utilitarian theory.

Virtue Theory

This theory states to act in a manner that is fair, just, and good.² Isn’t it fair to be told about what you are consuming with full transparency? Ignorance is not bliss. One should know if the products they consume are good, bad, or neutral for their health.

Anti-Labelers

To be a professional academic, I will consider (or hypothesize) the argument of those who would not prefer mandatory labeling of the AquaBounty salmon. Comstock talks about the stigma around agriculture biotechnology (ag biotech).  The biases are that engaging in ag biotech is as if we are playing God, inventing world-changing technology, illegitimately crossing species boundaries, and commodifying life (6).²  I will not rebut these claims since Comstock does a wonderful job himself in doing so. I will, however, raise the concern of how tainting food is a “powerful and extraordinary social act” (10).² It determines consumer behavior as people believe anything associated with foods no matter how untrustworthy the source is.²  Perhaps this is why AquaBounty is less likely to take the risk of labeling their salmon as genetically modified. They are afraid to take the risk of how untrustworthy news around GMOs (genetically modified organisms) may affect their profits. After all, they have been trying to get into the Canadian market for decades.¹ According to the experiment that Comstock describes, a group presented with favorable information about how a food affects human health (regardless of source credibility) results in a higher price of the food.² Conversely, if a group was presented with unfavorable information, the price decreased.² But, if both favorable and unfavorable information is presented about how the food affects human health, the price still decreases.² Generalizing from this experiment, even if AquaBounty does some strong marketing in proving that the genetically modified salmon is not harmful, other less credible sources may still have the power to reduce or completely annihilate the business’s profits.

Is the reduction of AquaBounty’s profits justifiable for not labeling the salmon as genetically modified? If the company goes out of business due to labeling, will there be less salmon for Canadians? Will this cause a chain reaction in higher salmon prices and strenuous work environments for Canadian farmers? Will then the salmon farmers suicide due to increased pressure? If labeling the salmon will result in such extreme ramifications, then I could consider in not labeling the salmon as genetically modified. As for now, being ignorant of the answers to these questions, I will state that it is ethical for AquaBounty to label their salmon as genetically modified for consumer autonomy.

Samar Kauser

Citations

1. Shakeri, Sima. “Genetically Modified Salmon Now Sold In Canada, But You May Not Even Know It.” HuffPost Canada. August 09, 2017. Accessed October 12, 2020. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/08/aquabounty-has-sold-4-5-tonnes-of-genetically-modified-atlantic_a_23070751/?guccounter=1.
2. Comstock G. (2010) Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods. In: Gottwald FT., Ingensiep H., Meinhardt M. (eds) Food Ethics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5765-8_4

As Scott discusses in his article on agricultural biotechnology, critics often dismiss technological fixes such as genetic modification on the basis that they end up doing more harm to the environment than good. He gives a comprehensive explanation of various technological fix criticisms and presents some rebuttals to these criticisms. Overall though, the article’s message seems quite clear – technological fixes offer trade-offs, not solutions. This idea is also explored in Folger’s National Geographic article titled “The Next Green Revolution” in which he analyzes two very different answers to the global food crisis – one that involves genetic modification, and one that doesn’t. In this blog post, I will be using Scott’s analysis of technological fixes to illustrate which of these answers I believe is best for the environment and the global population.

In Scott’s article, he starts off by addressing the philosophical criticisms of technological fixes, which he makes clear are not against the use of biotechnology altogether. Rather, these criticisms do not believe that biotechnology is the only solution to any one problem, especially given the fact that science and technology are largely responsible for many of the problems that we currently face. Scott uses a number of different philosophical theories to illustrate this point, such as White who believes that the ecological crisis has been caused by Western Christianity’s anthropocentric use of science and technology towards nature, or Kuhn who believes that we should not hold an uncritical belief in scientific progress. The article also addresses some practical criticisms of technological fixes; specifically that they do not solve problems but rather create new ones, and that they preserve or “fix” systems that should in fact be replaced by better ones. All of this boils down to the concept mentioned earlier – that technological fixes offer trade-offs, not solutions. As for the rebuttals to these criticisms, the main argument is that biotechnology is a much simpler solution to a complex social issue that would require a shift in people’s attitudes and behaviours. 

Folger spends the first half of his article discussing the use of GM crops to address global hunger, which is a tech-intensive way to continue breeding better crops using modern genetics. The idea behind this solution is that it will make farming more productive, but there are unforeseen consequences to this kind of technology – such as pests becoming resistant to certain pesticides being used. Not only that, but GM seeds are expensive – especially for farmers in the Global South – and many of the synthetic fertilizers and pesticides used in GM crops are harmful to the environment. This has led many folks to believe that there is an alternative to a genetically modified future, such as the organic farms in Tanzania that have been started through a nonprofit called Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania. These farms are all owned by women and feature a variety of crops, which provide a safety net in case one crop fails and also help to minimize the amount of pests. This way of farming is much less harmful to the environment and much more cost-effective, which leaves more money available for farmers to put their children through school. 

After reading both articles, it seems to me that Scott’s practical criticisms of technological fixes hold true when it comes to the GM crops that Folger discussed in his article. Although biotechnology may provide a temporary solution to a single problem, it also creates many more problems in the form of financial debt and environmental degradation. Not only that, but it upholds a system of countries in the Global North sweeping in to provide simple technological answers to complex social issues in the Global South – issues that have almost always been created (whether intentionally or not) by the same countries that are now trying to fix them. While organic farming has yet to gain traction in the global sphere, I believe it is a desirable long-term solution to world hunger. Sustainable agriculture fixes more problems than it creates, and represents a mindset shift away from quick fixes and towards the creation of a more livable planet for all its inhabitants.

– Keira

Sources

Folger, T. (2014). The next green revolution. National Geographic, 226(4), 32-57.

Scott, D. (2011). The technological fix criticisms and the agricultural biotechnology debate. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 24(3), 207-226.

In “Ethics and Genetically Modified Food” by Comstock, the moral acceptability of genetic modification is discussed primarily in the context of science, religion and various ethical theories. Comstock defines genetically modified food as food that has been altered at the molecular level in order to provide it with traits that are considered desirable by farmers or consumers. GM foods have been criticized for an assortment of reasons, which Comstock assesses using three different ethical theories: rights theory, utilitarian theory and virtue theory. Rights theory focuses on treating individuals as autonomous beings, while utilitarianism attempts to maximize overall utility and virtue theory emphasizes the importance of justice and fairness.

One of the most prominent concerns when it comes to GM foods is that they will have negative effects on humans, animals, or whole ecosystems – this is what Comstock refers to as an extrinsic objection. He claims that although it is necessary for GM technology to be developed responsibly and with appropriate caution, this is not enough of a reason to permanently ban GM altogether as there is still the possibility that the benefits could outweigh the harms. Comstock also touches on intrinsic objections which deal with the idea that GM as a whole is unnatural and therefore objectionable. For the remainder of the article, Comstock addresses four main concerns regarding the unnatural aspect of GM: that it is like playing God, that it is world-changing technology, that it crosses species boundaries, and that it commodifies life. He goes into detail about each of these claims, and refutes them using the ethical theories mentioned above. At the end of the article, Comstock comes to the conclusion that as long as we proceed responsibly and with caution, that we can use genetically modified food in an ethical way.

I believe that Comstock makes a number of very good points in his article, and also makes his ethical discussion incredibly accessible to a general audience. He does so by thoroughly describing each step that he takes to reach his conclusion, from the values held by scientists to the conflicts that could arise with different religious beliefs. Two of the points that I agree with the most in the article are that GM foods could help the world’s most vulnerable populations and that our decision regarding GM foods should be a secular one. As Comstock mentions in the article, the way that developed nations choose to address the issue of GM foods could have negative consequences for developing nations – this is something that I feel should be taken very seriously. When it comes to secularism, Comstock states that the only way to respect religious freedom is to make the decision independent of any religion – which I also agree with.

It is my opinion that Comstock’s article left something to be desired in the realm of current-day discussion. As he articulated at the very beginning of the text, the majority of food consumed in the US is already genetically modified, yet the entirety of the article was spent discussing whether or not this practice is ethically justifiable. It wasn’t until the very last paragraph that Comstock divulged his position on the matter, which is that using GM food is perfectly acceptable, so long as we proceed with an appropriate dose of caution. I do not disagree with this statement, in fact I think this is exactly the approach that is needed when dealing with things such as agricultural biotechnology. However, this left me wondering exactly what Comstock’s vision of responsibly-curated GM food would look like, and how we would go about achieving his goal. Not only that, but he failed to situate the GM discussion within the larger context of the global food crisis, which could have opened the floor to the ways in which this could (or could not) lead us towards a more sustainable future.

As I mentioned earlier, I wholeheartedly believe that GM foods could have a very positive impact on the global community – if they are handled with care. Comstock gave a detailed outline of why the use of agricultural biotechnology should indeed be considered ethically sound. However, it is my personal belief that he failed to mention how he feels we should go about using it in the future. Nevertheless, this article is a valuable piece of literature that lays down the foundation for an important ethical discussion that is more relevant now than ever before.

– Keira 

Source: Comstock, G. (2010). Ethics and genetically modified foods. In Food ethics (pp. 49-66). Springer, New York, NY.

If, like me, you grew up in the Prairies, you more than likely know a farmer. I know a few. In fact, my childhood best friend is in the process of learning the ropes to take over the family farm, and nothing pushes her buttons the way the public discourse around GMOs (genetically modified organisms) does. For this reason I was intrigued Gary Comstock’s article Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods.

In his article Comstock makes an argument for the ethicality of genetically modified food (or GM products, as he refers to them) by addressing several common objections for them. The objection that my farmer friend so often hears regards the safety (or lack thereof) of GM foods. Public discourse around the hazards of GM foods is driven largely by initiatives like The Non-GMO Project (who’s logo you’ll find in any Canadian grocery store), and perpetuated by campaigns such as A&W’s “no hormones, no steroids” branding which is plastered across the walls of each of their locations. My friend’s frustration with these claims that intervention with nature is inherently wrong or dangerous is shared by many others in the industry, and rightfully so. In his article Comstock cites a study which shows the immense power we hold by the ability to “taint” food by simply stating that it is bad for you (regardless of whether or not it’s true), which is essentially what the aforementioned organizations are doing. By suggesting that there is something dangerous about consuming GMO’s, the Non-GMO Project has already done critical damage to the reputation of GM foods.

Comstock himself was anti-GMO once in his life, he admits it, but this article lists the reasons for which he is a changed man. Regarding the defamation of GMO’s he takes a utilitarian perspective; weighing the potential benefits versus the potential harm. In this case he provides a hypothetical example of providing a food that was genetically modified to be nutrient rich to poor children vs the impact of anti-GM information being able to shut down GM infrastructure via aforementioned food “tainting.” In this hypothetical GM’s are assumed to be safe. Are the benefits that the poor children eating healthy, albeit GM foods, more valuable than the anti-GM group’s right to free speech? He determines that the harm done to children in need by spreading misinformation about the safety of GMO’s outweighs the preference of the others to spread the information. This is an extremely macro example, more large scale than the examples cited by my friend. The perspective she often takes is that without genetic modification, farmers would lose many of their crops. According to her, crops such as wheat have been subject to genetic modification to improve their durability against weather and pests. Her utilitarian example focuses on the preferences of the manufacturer rather than the consumer, but begs a similar question: do the benefits of free speech regarding genetic modification outweigh the financial loss to farmers and potential food scarcity among the Canadians they feed? Her, I, and likely Comstock, would argue it does not. In the same vein we would all likely go so far as to say that spreading misinformation about GMO’s is in and of itself unethical.

Genetic modification is one of the most controversial topics in this modern era since it is considered as an unnatural way to reproduce. The process of this technology can be described as insert the foreign genes (from sources other than the plant’s natural parent) into the plants (1). Additionally, it had invented and developed only for a short time to solve the problem of food insecurity. It means available information is limited so that there is no grantee that this is safe for everyone to consume. However, the productivity of food will increase dramatically by applying this technology. As the number of products goes up, the price of the products will drop. It could benefit people who are suffering from starvation. In “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods”, Comstock argues that it is ethically justifiable to pursue genetically modified food. According to the right people have (right theory), overall benefits are likely to outweigh the harm (utilitarian theory) and be wise, encouraging innovation with careful regulation (virtue theory) (16).

First of all, I want to talk about how does the information on the mass media impacts people’s views on genetically modified food? As I search the word “genetically modified food” on the internet. Most of the searching results were about the risk and danger you will face after consuming it. It is critical to note that most reports or news online are written by non-scientists.

For scientists, as they invent new technology, they have a responsibility to communicate their findings with the public. Also, they have to be honest about their experiments and results. Therefore, a challenge for this communication is that people tend to gain information on the mass media. The opinions that citizens have on these new technologies depend upon the way they engage with the information. Nevertheless, people often present “precautionary response” with what goes into their mouths that is a natural, reasonable, and rational tendency to take precautions (10). Nonetheless, genetically modified food is similar to the food they usually have in their daily life. There is no reason for them to taking the risk.

There is a fascinating experiment that Comstock has done to prove the precautionary response. It divided people into three groups. Group a received positive information, group b received negative information, and both the positive and the negative information for group c. They have put a bid on the pork they will consume. For group a, the biding price of pork going up while group b has a decrease in biding price, close to zero, and group c have a similar result to group b (11-12). We can get a conclusion that a person who holds negative views will have more impact than many people hold a positive view. It is people’s right to choose whether they want to consume it or not. However, if they vote to ban genetic modification could harm those who are facing the risk of starving to death. Is it ethical to pursue the right to free speech by sacrifice people’s life?

Furthermore, people are more concerned about its unnaturalness and the potential impact this “new crop” have on its surroundings. Comstock summarized objections relate to this concern into four aspects: play God, invent world-changing technology, cross species boundaries, and commodify life (6).  In my opinion, the most attractive objection is play God. It is related to people’s religious beliefs. The main idea is humans as creatures are subjects to the Lord of the Universe. Consequently, it is not suitable for us to shift these genes (6). Although this is depending on whether God will approve it or not. A wise and loving God will consider the benefits of developing this technology. For instance, to save starvation and rectify some damage we have done to nature. Thus, God will approve innovation of technology includes genetic modification. We can also put the religious view on the conflict between starve people and people who want to ban genetically modified food. Religious traditions suggest as we honor one view, we are dishonoring the other one but still, the life of a person is beyond personal freedom. (14). Comstock argues that we must not allow someone to bans genetically modified food for narrowly sectarian reasons alone (15). It is not ethical for us to let someone die based on a disputable argument that is inconsistent with God’s will.

Even genetically modified food is justified, we still need to be cautious. There is a long way to go before this technology promotes globally. It requires time to experiment and get more results to support its benefits for human beings that are sufficient enough for them to take a risk. Moreover, we need to be careful and observe more about whether this genetically modified food will be threatening the other species on the planet. Lastly, when you saw negative information about genetic modification on the internet, try to find scientific information from a reliable source to support your interpretation.

Ruoxin

Work Cited

Comstock, Gary. Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods:

https://philpapers.org/archive/COMEAG

Genetic modification of crops is one of the most controversial technologies in the current society. One the one hand, this technology helps increase productivity and feed more people. On the other hand, people worry about the security of this technology and its impacts on humans and the environment. In my opinion, genetic modification of crops is not developed on a sustainable basis as this technology sacrifices the long-term benefits for the short-term increase in productivity, which can leave a lot of problems for future generations.

There are three main reasons to explain the negative impacts of genetic modification of crops. First, genetic modification of crops is not beneficial for people’s health and can increase inequality in human society. Comstock argues that “possible harms to humans include perpetuation social inequities in modern agriculture, decreased food security for women and children on subsistence farms in developing countries, a growing gap between well capitalized economies in the northern hemisphere and less capitalized peasant economies in the south, risks to the food security of future generations, and the promotion of reductionistic and exploitative science” (Comstock 5). The security of GM foods hasn’t been guaranteed. It is not sure whether people’s health will be damaged by the long-term use of GM foods. In particular, even though GM foods will not cause obvious damages to people’s health in the short term, it is not sure whether the damages will be caused to future generations or not. However, one thing is for sure that genetic modification does increase inequality between developed and developing countries by changing the model of agriculture. This technology enables crops to grow in difficult environments and greatly increase productivity. As a result, developed countries have more advantages in developing their agriculture and then enjoying more economic superiorities.

Second, genetic modification of crops might influence the ecosystems in a negative way by reducing species diversity and losing soils. Comstock argues that “potential harms to ecosystems include possible environmental catastrophe, inevitable narrowing of germplasm diversity, and irreversible loss of degradation of air, soils, and waters” (Comstock 5). This technology greatly increases the burden of soils and waters. The increase in productivity means the overexploitation of lands and waters, which is not beneficial for the long-term development of agriculture.

Third, genetic modification of crops might also hurt animals. Comstock argues that “potential harms to animals include unjustified pain to those used in research and production” (Comstock 5). In order to develop this technology, animals become the targets in experiments, particularly studying whether there is any negative impact on humans’ health. It is cruel to use animals for such an experiment because it is not an easy or short experiment to draw the conclusion. There will be a lot of experiments required to study the impacts of GM foods on people’s health.

Therefore, genetic modification of crops is not developed on a sustainable basis and should not be promoted on a great scale. Some people might oppose that genetic modification can improve the quality of crops by making them more resistant to pests and severe environments. They believe that such technology can help solve the shortage of crops and feed the increasing population in this world. Nevertheless, it is essential to notice that the fast increase in the production accomplishes the increasing burden on soils and the ecosystem. It is a technology that sacrifices the long-term agriculture for the short-term productivity. If humans rely too much on this technology to feed people on this planet, then future generations will have to face more difficulties and challenges in developing agriculture when soils are overexploited.

Work Cited

Comstock, Gary. (2012) Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods.

https://philpapers.org/archive/COMEAG

What is a techno-fix? It is a surprisingly controversial phrase that has conjured skepticism and trepidation when uttered. Simply put, a techno-fix is a technological solution to a problem. There are many examples throughout history such as the cell phone for long distance communication, the airplane for intercontinental travel or even the wheel for basic transport. Why does such a mundane phrase have this controversy around it?

Dane Scott’s paper “The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate” seeks to lay out the debate over techno-fixes. He maintains a neutral tone throughout the paper with the goal of accurately showing all sides of the argument. He reveals both philosophical and practical critiques as well as philosophical and practical arguments in favor of techno-fixes. This blog post will focus on the philosophical considerations of techno-fixes.

Scott outlines several philosophical thoughts against techno-fixes. All stem from what Scott describes as “reframing a social problem as a technological one.” In doing so, critics argue that problem solvers fail to see the full picture, developing a tunnel vision that makes them overlook key aspects of the issue. Techno-fixes reduce “the complexity of [the] problem [and] may exclude many important factors, generating unforeseen consequences” (Scott). Scott then develops several specific philosophical critiques. He starts with the theories of Leo Marx who argued that a techno-fix mind-frame “is embedded deeply in what was, and probably is, our culture’s dominant conception of history.” He is arguing that the techno-fix has become a staple of humanity influencing the developmental path we have taken throughout history. It is as if the impulse to search for a techno-fix to a problem has become a reflex. Next Scott discusses the views of Langdon Winner who says that “it is usually taken for granted that the only reliable sources for improving the human condition stem from new machines, techniques and chemicals” again referencing the tunnel vision in looking for solutions.

I do not believe the philosophical critiques against techno-fixes stand. When outlining the philosophical arguments in favour of a techno-fix solution to agricultural issues, Scott builds context putting forth the great agricultural challenge: that our farmland needs to be able to feed an additional 3 billion people and also reduce the harmful environmental impacts. Scott presents the argument of Anthony Trewavas that a techno-fix is the best way to solve this problem. He argues that there are two options, increase the land dedicated to farming, therefore increasing the ecological impact, or increase the yields of current farms. Simply increasing the number of farms will result in a zero-sum game with any food benefits being offset by damages to the environment. On the other hand, Trewavas describes a techno-fix increasing the yields of current crops as a “win-win” (Scott). A techno-fix in agriculture could come in the form of genetically modified crops design to produce more, offer more nutritional value and be more resilient. It is a solution that can address both problems of the challenge. Detractors argue that focusing on the techno-fix is, again, ignoring the full picture. They say that the world already produces enough food, but a socially unjust distribution system prevents everyone from getting what they need. They believe an actual response to this issue involves addressing the social asymmetry, rather than reframing the issue as one that has a technological solution (Scott). Trewavas has a response to this. He says, “it is far easier for scientists to conjure more food from the plants we grow than to persuade the West to share its agricultural bounty with its poorer neighbors.” This is particularly interesting to me. He is fully acknowledging the social nature of this issue, contrary to the philosophical critiques raised against a techno-fix.

This is where the critiques fail. This human propensity to naturally search for a techno-fix is not the result of ignoring the social dimensions of an issue. It is the result of fully understanding the difficulty of dealing with a social issue. It is incredibly unlikely or, at the very least an extremely long process to uproot established social injustices and create lasting change. It is a tall ladder to climb and, while that ladder is being climbed, people are dying.

Areas are experiencing overpopulation and people are starving. Many in the world suffer from Vitamin A deficiency or VAD (Folger). There are real consequences to this food challenge. The search for a techno-fix is not brushing the social nature under the rug. It is taking a more efficient and practical approach to mitigating the problem and try to prevent as many unnecessary deaths as possible. Yes, people suffering from VAD would benefit from a fairer food distribution. Is that going to happen anytime soon? Not likely. Can they benefit immediately from Golden Rice, a techno-fix that has created a rice that is a reliable source of vitamin A (Folger)? Yes.

The philosophical arguments are flat out mistaken. A techno-fix is not a flawed philosophy embedded in our culture that overlooks social issues. The techno-fix is the result of looking at the whole picture and developing a reasonable response with an immediate impact.

-Kenny

References:

Folger, T. (n.d.) “The Next Green Revolution”. National Geographic Magazine. Retrieved from the National Geographic website.

Scott, D. (2011, June 1). “The Technological Fix Criticisms and the Agricultural Biotechnology Debate”. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics: volume 24. 207-226. https://web-b-ebscohost-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=23953e20-a158-4394-b905-eb7719f9f4fd%40pdc-v-sessmgr05

Noam Mohr in ” A New Global Warming Strategy” expresses the idea that a reduction in meat consumption and promotion of a vegetarian diet will in turn reduce the emission of Methane and help reverse climate change. I believe that his idea is an economically feasible one and will explain why.

I will preface this by stating that in any type of solution to global warming, there is an undetermined, unavoidable amount of money that must be spent to overcome the obstacles that restrict development in fighting global warming. As such for argument’s sake I will assume that Mohr’s ideas are being implemented, or at the least entertained, in a world without Covid-19, and countries are capable of using the necessary resources to implement Mohr’s ideas.

Mohr’s recommendations to effectively implement a widespread vegetarian diet has two aspects. Influencing private firms to promote the consumption of plant-based foods as an aspect of their climate change initiative. As well as getting the government to step in and implement a tax on livestock agriculture, or change subsidy conditions to phase out their operation. Realistically, both these ideas are economic tools that have been used successfully many times.

Private firms are profit-maximizing, meaning they will take any action so long as it benefits their operation. If firms were to promote the adaptation of a vegetarian diet, it is likely that this would gain them public approval which would incentivize people to invest in their company. Similar to how people invest in and support Tesla for their electric vehicle creation, which they perceive to be a valid effort towards a sustainable future. Furthermore, so long as a firm is not negatively affected by the consequential decrease in the size of the livestock agricultural market, multiple other firms would follow until a large portion of industries in the market are promoting the adaptation of vegetarianism or veganism; on the scale that they promote reduced carbon emissions. This would also benefit the competitors to livestock agriculture, as a slow shift away from consumption of meat, would mean firms that sell substitutes for meat products have more to gain and have more reason to promote plant-based diets. This would ultimately produce the widespread awareness of the impact a plant-based diet could have that Mohr wanted, and provide environmentalists with the necessary incentive to act environmentally conscious on a large scale.

Mohr’s suggestion to tax or change subsidies in the livestock market would also be possible. Similar to the Paris Agreement that exists today targeting a reduction in emissions that limits a countries Carbon emissions through government intervention, a similar agreement can be created to combat Methane production. Or rather, it’s more likely an edit of the Paris agreement would incorporate Methane reduction as a tradeoff to decreasing enforcement on Carbon reduction. This way total resources used to limit emissions stay the same while Methane emissions get reduced. Thus, the implementation of taxes or subsidies would follow similar guidelines to those of existing Carbon taxes. As a result, the countries involved would experience an increase in the creation of new business as the emissions that new businesses are most likely to produce in their development would now be regulated to a lesser degree. Similarly, firms that were limited in their ability to produce due to these restrictions will be able to increase production. Combined, this increase in firm development and expansion will allow for the development of more competitive markets; meaning lower prices for consumers and more variety. Such an increase would allow for economies to experience an increase in spending within the country, perpetuating the further development of Methane and emission reduction strategies; enhancing the opportunity to mitigate climate change.

Although Mohr’s idea is not a perfect one, it contains the framework for widespread implementation and opens the conversation on what seemingly meaningless lifestyle changes can alter current global warming trends.

-Elier

In today’s society, human beings are consuming more and more animals. Among them, the most widely consumed animals are food animals, such as pork, chicken, beef, etc., which are consumed in a huge amount all over the world. And the economic phenomenon brought about by meat consumption is also considerable. But for those who are vegetarian or religious, meat consumption is not acceptable or even strongly opposed.  Patrick’s very important point in the article, is people acting a period of moral vegetarianism to reduce the consumption of animals, it contains animal ethics thoughts, make human moral practice the protection of animals. But because the meat culture is greater than the moral vegetarian culture, and with the rooted consciousness of people, eating meat will not be easy to change, so the development of ethical vegetarianism has been limited. So in order to satisfy the majority of meat lovers, soy products instead of real meat products have emerged as a viable alternative, but in this article, Patrick argues for a deeper shift in animal consumption. That is laboratory breeding. This may sound incredible, but the results of the experiment were unexpected. In addition, there is a variety of laboratory technologies of this thought, and the transformation of different technologies according to different needs is enough to show that the ideas generated by human beings in order to protect animals and meet human needs are feasible.

So culturing meat is a great way to reduce animal suffering. And the direction of change is positive, widely supported, and ethical. Lab-cultured meat can, to a certain extent, reduce the carbon dioxide emissions caused by breeding animals on the land and reduce a series of environmental pollution caused by meat production. At the same time, it is very important to protect the rights of animals, so that animals also enjoy the equal right to life. It’s in line with human morality. In addition, the laboratory culture can produce different kinds of meat customized to meet the needs of different consumers, improve the production efficiency of meat, and increase the diversity of products in the market. More important is to make meat production more standardized and safe, and to avoid food safety problems caused by animal diseases. In this article, Patrick passed on to readers by means of contrast and comparison that cultivating meat is a feasible way.

Cultured meat has the technical support for the development and, more importantly, the moral support of human beings, which is very critical. Only when most meat lovers actively convert their consciousness and ideas to consume and cultivate meat, protect animals, and reduce animal suffering, can the cultivation of meat proceed smoothly, and the animal protection cause of human beings can achieve stable and sustainable development. Patrick’s article very clearly conveys to readers the concept of active animal protection, and have educational scientific significance. Moreover, the scientific cases he provides are very convincing. Thus, from this point of view, technology can effectively change some of the earth’s bad status quo, and the earth’s ecology can have a good improvement.

Citation: Hopkins, Patrick D., Austin Dacey. 2008. Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters? file:///Users/macbookair/Downloads/Hopkins-Dacey2008_Article_VegetarianMeatCouldTechnologyS.pdf

As concern for environmental issues and animal rights increase, calls for us to shift pour diets away from heavy meat consumption to vegetarian and even vegan diets have also increased. Organizations such as Greenpeace are leaders in this charge with pledges to encourage people to eat less meat and more vegetables.[1] And these calls for changes to the ‘Western diet’ and to reduce meat consumption are justified. In his article, A New Global Warming Strategy, Noam Mohr mentions that while carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas most produced by humans, non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases, such as methane, are responsible for most of the atmospheric warming we are seeing today. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide and the primary producer of methane today, is industrial animal agriculture.[2]

According to Mohr, a shift from methane-emitting food products is easier than cutting carbon dioxide. He also goes on further to say that shifts in diet will lower greenhouse gas emissions more quickly than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies. Looking at this from the aspect of environmental impacts alone, this makes sense and is true. Reducing our meat consumption will definitely have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. From a supply and demand sense, if there is less demand for industrially produced meat, the supply will have to reduce and this reduction would influence methane emissions. This would be easy for individual actors to carry out as it wouldn’t require much systemic change for it to happen.

Looking at this through the lens of ethics, this would be a great choice for utilitarians and deontologists who include moral consideration of animals. It would also be a great choice for advocates of animal rights as industrial animal agriculture has been a major source of animal cruelty and suffering. However, solely looking at it the way Mohr presents it is still pretty anthropocentric and may be insufficient for holistic ecocentrists and ecofeminist-vegetarians such as Carol J. Adams. Adams in her article Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animal, says that we must redefine our idea of autonomy and also see ourselves in relationships with animals in order for our attitudes towards meat consumption to change.[3] This is different from what Mohr is proposing as this would require a significant shift in ideology as opposed just a change in behaviour and consumption.

Personally, I think that while Mohr has proposed a great idea and Adams also challenges it further, their calls for vegetarianism and ideological shifts seem to be based on Western ideas and views. For the majority of the non-Western world, meat products are a major source of protein and asking them to cut it out completely would be very difficult. I am from Western Africa, and anytime I discuss meat consumption or even animal rights with my family or friends back home, they regularly mention that while moral consideration for animals is a noble virtue, it is difficult to ask someone who is struggling to find sufficient and healthy food to stop eating meat. For them, industrial animal agriculture isn’t a major thing as well so they do not see themselves as being cruel to animals. And I get it. They are trying to survive and in order for us in the environmental community to encourage people like them to buy into our ideals, we would need to adapt the way we discuss and present animal rights and vegetarianism. It may also mean that we may have to realize that vegetarianism may not be the best solution for everyone.

By Oseyi I.

References:

1. Greenpeace International. “Less Meat and Dairy for a Healthier Future.” Greenpeace International, www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/act/less-meat-and-dairy-for-a-healthier-future/
   
2. Noam Mohr (2005) “A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes” EarthSave International Report. 
3. Carol Adams (1991) “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” Hypatia vol. 6, no. 1. 125-145

I appreciate the intent of Mohr’s article and believe the information presented is needed and worth knowing, however, it is very easy to make a quick and uninformed decision on an important topic by reading such articles. While as an environmentalist I agree with the message of Mohr in his article, A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes, it is full of bias and leaves out the necessary and relevant information to make an informed decision. Animal agriculture is out of control, we eat too much meat, there is too much animal suffering, and something should be done. However, while boycotting meat consumption may fix some environmental problems and address certain issues of morality, it fails to consider the consequence such an action would have on other environmental factors.

Mohr says “The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products” (2005). Eliminating cattle ranching here in Alberta would eradicate what has become a keystone species in our prairie grasslands. Cattle have effectively replaced bison in their maintenance of the ecological services they play in the ecosystem. Estimates of bison populations in the North American prairies pre-European contact are as high as 60 million, given this estimate a study by Kelliher and Clark writing for the Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal, found that the historic bison herds would have produced approximately 22,000,000,000 kilograms (or 2.2 teragrams) of methane, as opposed to the 2.5 teragrams produced by cattle (2010). The numbers are relatively comparable. Therefore modern cattle ranching would not be introducing much more methane than was already being cycled by the native bison.

More, bison, and now the cows that have replaced them, are crucial for maintaining several ecological services. Unlike monocultures, grazing fields that are required for cattle in Alberta host natural prairie flora. Birds such as the Brown-Headed cowbird, which used to rely on bison kicking up insects in the grasslands, would have perished if not for the role being filled by cattle. Cattle are important in this way for preserving biodiversity. The cows also ensure the grasslands are maintained inorder to graze on and this preserves their crucial function acting as a carbon sink. For anyone who has studied soils, grasses have surprisingly deep roots and hold a large amount of carbon from entering the atmosphere. Lastly a major environmental issue is our continuously degrading soil conditions as they are worked to exhaustion and subject to soil burn. The natural process offered by a herd of cattle (churning the dirt with their hooves, fertilizing it with their dung, and introducing essential microbes into the soil with their urine and saliva from grazing), all help ensure soil health. These are all services that historically were provided by bison, and that are now offered by cattle, that are essential to a healthy prairie grassland and would be lost with the elimination of Alberta’s beef industry.

Mohr, Noam. (2005). “A New Global Warming Strategy.” Earthsave International Report. http://www.earthsave.org/news/earthsave_global_warming_report.pdf

Kelliher, F and Clark, C. 2010. “Methane emissions from bison—An historic herd estimate for the North American Great Plains”. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

            Volume 150, Issue 3, 15 March 2010, Pages 473-477.

• Mitchel McArthur

There are many reasons to go vegetarian, Noam Mohr’s ‘New Global Warming Strategy’ exemplifies the vegetarian that wants to lessen the effect of the meat industry on the environment, and Patrick D. Hopkins and Austin Dacey’s ‘Vegetarian Meat’ exemplifies the vegetarian that wants to stop the ill treatment of animals. I will argue that if both camps want vegetarianism to win out in society, they will need to join forces and fight with both perspectives in mind.

I want to start with Hopkins and Dacey’s ‘Vegetarian Meat’, and first say that fellow blog-contributor Olivia made some excellent points regarding their misrepresentation of meat-eaters as weak-willed and as only eating meat because it’s cleanly packaged at the grocery store and that they don’t think about the real animal that died. However, as Olivia correctly points out, many cultures have outdoor meat markets in which you can see the animal killed in front of you, and that many cultures have traditional dishes that involve meat and that it does not make people weak-willed for continuing to participate in these traditions. I would like to add to this line of reasoning that the advent of grocery stores has not made people more interested in meat, even if consumption is up due to availability, people have been hunting and farming their own meat for centuries. Reading this article as a resident of Alberta, land of Alberta Beef, it reads as patronising to claim that people wouldn’t eat meat if they saw it being killed, considering the many pig and goat roasts I was taken to as a child. Maybe there is something morally wrong with people who have the emotional fortitude to kill their own dinner, but the fact remains that they exist.

While I would argue that the majority of animal rights activists are interested in climate change and the environment (most likely due to its impact on animals/habitats) there are many environmentalists who focus their efforts in other directions than animal rights, such as sustainability of production, the transportation costs of food, on plastics and other elements of the fight. Many environmentalists consider meat morally and environmentally acceptable as long as it is local (to reduce transportation costs and therefore reducing emissions). These are people who are perfectly aware of the way their meat gets to them, they may even buy it in bulk, directly from the farm and feel better about it because it’s packaged in butcher’s paper rather than in plastic. However, they may not be aware, as Mohr’s points out, that “the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture” (pg2) and that “shifts in diet lower greenhouse gas emissions much more quickly than shifts away from the fossil fuel burning technologies that emit carbon dioxide” (pg3). Not knowing these things means that many environmentalists may end up spinning their wheels trying to make an impact without cutting out meat. By increasing education about what actions make the most environmental impact, rather than guilting people for not being as affected by animal suffering as the next person, Mohr’s concept of ‘Climatarianism’ would allow environmentalists to make more of an impact on the environment than they are currently doing, and would have the added benefit of decreasing animal suffering over time as people change their habits.

If during this transitional period the ‘cultured meat’ described by Hopkins and Dacey becomes more widely available, then people will be able to enjoy the meat they are used to without both the moral and the environmental implications (Hopkins & Dacey pg7).

By combining the environmental and animal rights perspectives in the vegetarian movement, both sides can make greater a far greater impact.

Sources:

Mohr, Noam. 2005. “A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are Overlooking  Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool  Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes.” An EarthSave International Report. [http://www.earthsave.org/news/earthsave_global_warming_report.pdf ]

Hopkins, P.D., Dacey, A. Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?. J Agric Environ Ethics 21, 579–596 (2008). https://doi-org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/10.1007/s10806-008-9110-0

In their paper “Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters” authors Hopkins and Dacey discuss the potential of synthetic or artificially grown meat products to offer an alternative to meat from slaughtered animals. At the outset of their paper they describe people that they call “uncomfortably carnivorous”. People who are aware of both the harm farm animals endure to become food and the environmental consequences of farming animals but continue to eat meat despite the guilt. I would say that I fall into the uncomfortably carnivorous category. I was absolutely amazed while reading Hopkins’ and Dacey’s description of the developing technologies that could make it possible to eat nearly identical meat but without killing an animal or damaging the environment. Once they finished outlining some of these technologies such as self-organizing tissue cultures and organ printing, all of which create a product that is still essentially ‘meat’ but without having come froma living animal, they turned their attention to responding to the various objections people have to synthetic meats. I think there was an objection which the two forgot to address. It is an issue that has been raised by some of the previous posts on this site and was showcased in the article “Fake milk is real news, as synthetic alternatives threaten traditional dairy farms” by Cassie Slane. What about all the farmers whose livelihoods depend on raising animals? The objection that synthetic meats and animal products negatively impact farmers. I will attempt to respond to this objection in this post.

The Slane article is about dairy farmers upset by competition from a new company called Perfect Day Foods which offers a synthetic milk product very similar to milk but not created by actual cows. This synthetic milk is “made in a lab using genetically engineered yeast programmed with DNA to produce the same proteins found in cow’s milk” (Slane). The farmers are specifically trying to prevent the company from being able to advertise its product as milk. This is a very personal issue to me. I live in rural Alberta just north of Edmonton near the town of Gibbons. Many of the people I know and am friends with are farmers. Many of my friends were members of 4-H beef growing up. In my house, most of the beef we get we purchase directly from my neighbor (and my former bus driver) who raises a few cattle alongside her main job. The objection is that if society makes the switch to synthetic meats then that will hurt the animal agriculture industry. In many cases such as synthetic milk, those hit hardest are the most innocent: small, generational farmers (Slane).

This objection deserves consideration because it is peoples’ livelihoods at stake. Unfortunately, and with a heavy heart, I do not think it is a valid objection. The threat posed to farmers by synthetic animal products are simply the cost of economic progress in a fair capitalist system. It is competition in the market. Animal farmers, particularly smaller farmers, deserve much sympathy for being victims of market forces. They are still a cost and costs should always attempt to be minimized. But that does not mean we should halt the progress of synthetics for their sake.

Markets change. Consumer demands change. Innovation, brought on by technological advancement, is a good thing. These synthetic animal products offer a wide array of benefits. They contribute less to climate change. They can be healthier. They require less land and are a more efficient means of production. Synthetic animal products are a very competitive addition to the food market. Competition is healthy. Competition makes markets more efficient, not just benefiting consumers, but society as a whole.

When animal farmers balk at synthetic meats, they are opposing fair competition. When they ask the government to step in and side with them, they are asking the government to oppose fair competition. I do not personally believe that is something the government should seek to do often, especially not when the competition is from something with so many societal benefits. It was striking to me when the lawyer for farmers in the Slane article accused synthetic food start-ups of caring “more about making money than… anything else”. A profit motive in a for-profit company is not a flaw in of itself. Farmers are for-profit. Farms are private enterprises with profit motives as well. This critique does not stand. Yes, there is a wholesomeness and nobility beyond profit in farming (relations to the community, generational tradition, etc.), but there is a nobility to what Perfect Day Foods is doing as well. Surely that company has a passion for improving the environment, our health, and the welfare of animals. I do not really see a reason why farmers are in need of special treatment compared to Perfect Day.

I really feel for the plight of farmers, especially small farmers, but competition is a risk facing any business owner. There are other options for those that are struggling. Perhaps they could attempt to switch their farming to crops away from animals. Perhaps there is an opportunity for the government to help in that transition without interfering with competition. Maybe these farmers could scale down their operations and focus on selling to local clientele. They could also work a second job alongside their small operation. That is what my neighbor is doing. The transition to synthetic animal products will hurt animal farmers, but it does not spell the death of the farmer’s way of life. Synthetic animal products are progress. Progress comes at a cost but that does not mean progress must be halted.

Kenny

References:

Hopkins, P.D., and Dacey, A. (2008). “Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?”. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics: volume 21. 579-596. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/article/10.1007/s10806-008-9110-0

Slane, C. (2019). “Fake milk is real news, as synthetic alternatives threaten traditional dairy farms”. NBC News. Retrieved from the NBC News website.

The essay, “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” by Carol Adams, argues for the integration of the protection of animal into the greater ecofeminism discourse, a topic Adams feels has been unfairly neglected. Ecofeminism is the belief that the oppression of both women and the environment are inextricably linked because tolerance for the abuse of either perpetuates the tolerance for the abuse of both. Of the six arguments presented in the essay explaining why the rights of animals has been marginalised but deserving of more attention, the fourth argument is entitled, “the Social Construct of Edible Bodies and Humans as Predators.” This section condemns the notion of human beings as natural predators who require the consumption of meat to survive as merely a social construct perpetuated by the meat industry to justify their products and practices. Moreover, the widespread acceptance of this doctrine has lead to the acceptance of the abuse of animals as a necessary evil, which paves the way for other necessary evils, such as the mistreatment of women, to be accepted. Adams posited that this acceptance stems from the desire to seek and adhere to the natural order, an objective good, which humans has falsely interpreted to include the predation of other animals.

The sections raises the chimpanzee as a challenge to the notion that humans require meat as part of their diet. After all, they appear to be mostly herbivores who rarely consume meat. Furthermore, they are far more anatomically suitable for the hunting and consumption of prey than humans who are physically weaker and lacking natural tools, such as long canines and sharp nails. But what does chimpanzees have to do with humans? It is true that humans are evolved from chimpanzees. It is also true that the last link in the genetic compatibility chain has long snapped and humans are indisputably a separate species altogether. A separate species who construct their own tools of the hunt and develop their own strategy of relying on greater endurance rather than their comparatively meagre strength and speed. It is also as true that humans are not carnivores, as is evident by their ability to digest some plant matter, as it is true that humans are not herbivores, as is evident by our ability to consume some animal matter. Instead, like chimpanzee, humans occupy a different category of animals called omnivores whose natural diet can consist of both plant and animal material.

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the comparison above. Perhaps the true purpose of the comparison above, distracting as the inadequacy of the example may be, is that omnivores have the ability to choose the content of their diet. Perhaps the point is that, like our very distance ancestor, humans too have the ability to choose and should therefore emulate chimpanzee in the elimination (mostly) of animals from their diet. If so, the argument is weakened and muddled by the insistence that humans are not predators in their own way, which could be interpreted as selective rejection of facts that are contrary to the argument presented. However, if it is natural for humans to eat meat, then is the oppression of animals also natural?

Underpinning this argument is an assumption that requires further scrutiny, that that which is natural is good in and of itself and the natural order must be followed. This is a short list of natural phenomena : bird songs, snow-capped mountains, parasites, the bubonic plague, mass extinction events and cannibalism. This is a short list of unnatural phenomena: justice, rights, morally, ideology and philosophy. The natural life expectancy of humans was around fifty years of age before it was unnatural extended by cleaning agents, pharmaceuticals, aggressively engineered living conditions, etc. An authentically natural lifestyle has been so long abandoned by most humans that truly returning is unimaginable and unfeasible. This is not a condemnation of nature or the natural order. Rather, it is a (criminally) brief argument that the natural condition is not an objective good and nuanced and measured reflection is required when engaging with the topic. With regards to the question at the end of the previous paragraph, more questions now arise. If it is natural for humans to eat animals, why follow this natural convention and reject so many others? Do humans not have the ability and autonomy to choose otherwise?

Keisey

Work Cited:   Adams, C.J. (1991), Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals1. Hypatia, 6: 125-145. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1991.tb00213.x

I: Mohr’s Views

Carbon dioxide emissions are wrongfully the focus of most anti-global warming initiatives. Legislation focuses on “raising fuel economy standards, capping [carbon dioxide] emissions from power plants, and investing in alternative energy sources” (pg. 1). Mohr also reveals that though humanity produces carbon dioxide more than all other greenhouse gasses, non-CO₂ emissions have the strongest warming effects (pg.1). This illustrates Mohr’s notion that CO₂ is wrongfully the focus of anti-warming initiatives. Mohr is not saying that CO₂ is harmless, only that there are gasses more harmful. Focus should be placed on the most harmful element of global warming, rather than the most abundant for the most immediate results.

Methane has the most powerful warming effect of all the greenhouse gasses. “Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO₂” (pg. 2) and though CO₂ in the atmosphere has risen by almost a third since pre-industrial earth, “methane has more than doubled” (pg. 2). Mohr also includes the fact that natural methane production is magnified by the warming effect of human methane productions (decay of certain organic matters) which are already producing “one and a half times as much as all natural sources” (pg. 2).  This reveals methane as the largest cause of global warming of the greenhouse gasses, and its production is leagues greater than natural sources. Methane ought to be the focus of reducing greenhouse emissions, considering its larger (relative to natural) presence and power to retain heat in the atmosphere compared to CO₂.

Methane primarily comes from animal agriculture. While methane is also made from the energy sector “the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture” (pg. 2), mostly a product of digestion in cattle (85%) as well as stores of animal waste in “lagoons” (15%) (pg. 2). That 100 million tons of methane is produced annually from animal agriculture (pg. 2) highlights methane above other gasses the largest cause of global warming The reaction to massive methane production is to question its massive producer for alternatives to the animal product industry, reducing (or halting) methane production.

Reducing animal agriculture industry will combat global warming most effectively; widely adopting a vegetarian diet would see huge results. Mohr adds that methane dissipates in the atmosphere after approx. eight years, while CO₂ requires up to a century (pg. 3). As well, the obstacle of fighting CO₂ emissions means to fight energy giants and effect cars and factories, which are very difficult to convince public and private interest against (pg. 3). Regarding an alternative to animal agriculture, hypothetically it could be done today with only the decision to eat greens over meats across the public. It is clear the reduction (or dissolution) of the animal product industry (meat, milk, etc.) would immediately cut a gargantuan production of an incredibly harmful greenhouse gas. An absent animal agriculture can be replaced with a larger plant centered agriculture, thus adopting a vegetarian diet across the public would combat global warming in a noticeable capacity.

II: Application

A vegetarian diet may bring an enlarged food surplus and healthy atmosphere, only at the cost of meat. Imagine the tons of fuel, land, water, and food, put into maintaining any number of farm animals. This massive array of resources if focused on corn, wheat, etc. could lower the cost of food considerably and feed a massive amount of people (even across the world). This food otherwise is fed to animals to produce a smaller volume of animal products. Animal cruelty would cut back tremendously, and the environment would be noticeably safer in a lifetime (recall the short cycling out of methane). Economically, incentives would be created to satisfy the human craving for meat in plant-based alternatives which may bring commercial success to sustain all sorts of new plant-based industries.

The only thing sacrificed (broadly) seems to be meat and other products. There is a deep craving for meat in some humans. It seemed sustainable when living in smaller collectives where meat was a semi-rare luxury. Presently in the western world, it is possible to acquire any number of animal products with the literal push of a button. This craving is costly to the environment, and while some career carnivores will have to sit on their instincts, it is to the benefit of what is our only home. The question of steaks everyday or a healthy planet must be considered. As shown earlier, the incentive to produce plant-based meat alternatives can draw momentum from this craving. It is not as though meat-like products will disappear forever from humanity’s diet, only that it must cooperate with a sustainable earth.

III: Concerns

What is to be done with the ‘leftovers’ of the animal agricultural industry? Mohr had stated earlier the relative ease of reducing methane in animal agriculture versus reducing CO₂ which involves combating energy, cars, etc. While no doubt deconstructing the animal agricultural industry seems easier than deconstructing the energy sector, there are some pressing issues worth considering. A small issue would be those whose lives have depended on animal agriculture. A solution would be to perhaps give these people priority in setting up plant alternative farms (subsidies, aid) considering their way of life is essentially being outlawed. Larger questions remain, however.

There are presumably tens of millions of living things: Cattle, chickens, pigs, etc. that must either be slaughtered without reproduction, or be ‘put somewhere’. What is humanity to do with all these animals? Introducing them into nature is a whole other ethical question, but is killing millions of them without the intent of repopulating them an ‘ok’ thing to do? Humanity has not always been the kindest overlords to cattle, but this seems to be a whole new titan of a question. If the answer is a necessary killing, so be it, but is this a proper way to treat a population of animals we exploited in their birth to begin with? Humanity is the one who bred these beasts to be milk, meat, egg, etc. producing machines for our advantage. The last generation may be slaughtered as ‘the last wave of meat products’, but this is to admit outright these animals as products that we are done with. A sizeable opposition to this will have strong opinions.

IV: Conclusion

Ultimately, Mohr gives a (hypothetically) practical solution to one of humanity’s most dire problems. Considering the heating power of methane and the easier task of dismantling the animal agricultural versus combating energy and transportation, humanity only needs to ask itself if meat is worth all the effort delivered in its production. With the advent of meat alternatives and an ever-growing environmental issue, meat is losing looking more and more the compromise to a sustainable existence.

Sources: Noam Mohr. A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes. From EarthSave International. (2005) http://www.earthsave.org/news/earthsave_global_warming_report.pdf

Hopkins’ paper makes many good points and gives a lot of insight into future solutions to the meat industry that thoroughly intrigued me. It made me aware of so many possibilities that I had not considered in terms of making meat products without livestock. I thought that was truly fascinating. However, there are many points Hopkins brings up that I  believe do not serve to paint the full picture of why people continue to eat meat. His explanation does not encompass the global community as a whole. Looking at cities worldwide is essential because it is not just western society that slaughters animals for food.

I agree that packaging meat for grocery stores contributes to enabling consumers to disconnect from where the meat originates. However,  I do not believe that aspect accounts for everything that stops an individual from looking into a vegetarian lifestyle. Hopkins puts a great deal of emphasis on the meat packaging, but what about countries that are not restricted to only having grocery stores with aisles of packaged meat? Many countries have markets (such as the now widely known wet markets in China) where you can either see the full dead animal or witness the animal slaughtered in front of you (such as fish or chickens). Countries with this system can see the animal that will become their dinner firsthand, but does this compel them to want to halt eating meat? Maybe for some, but the truth is that people who grow up being exposed directly to the slaughtered animal do not seem to hold more empathy towards the animal.  These people most likely feel the opposite of what western people would and adopt a mindset where there is no great importance placed on how the animal feels and how fresh the meat is. A cow is simply meat for people to eat. So I wonder if there is a difference between not seeing the animal in a grocer store versus seeing the dead animal right in front of you. If anything, you could argue that not seeing the animal would significantly affect a person’s ability to grow empathy for the animal. If you grow up used to seeing the sight of slaughtered livestock in front of you, then you grow numb to it. A possible cause for the disconnect between a person and their food’s origin may be more due to a lack of education in one’s upbringing. Growing up without learning to care for animals and their well-being could be a larger factor in people’s inability to act in the animal’s interest rather than in their craving for meat. This inability to connect to the animal lacks in many cultures. There is a rising concern for animals worldwide, but this could be due to the growing availability of information on the internet. People are now able to be educated on animal lives. If it were more solidified in our culture to treat animal lives with respect, it would be more widely acceptable to lesson meat intake. I do not believe the primary cause is the presentation of meat at the grocery store.

Another point I would like to discuss is Hopkin’s view on people who eat meat. I believe people are more complex than how he perceives them. There are many reasons other than a person merely ignoring the death of a livestock animal for food. There are more reasons than just the presentation of meat on the shelves that prevent someone from fully adopting a vegetarian lifestyle. There are many contributing factors, Hopkins’ point being one of them, of course, but not a soul reason. If one grows up in a culture where meat is a core part of meals, it can be hard to separate oneself from these cultural norms, it takes time and effort to fully transition. Of course, someone who grew up with more bread or vegetables in their diet would find it much easier to quit meat altogether. Many social events or activities center around meat such as Barbecue or hot pot in many cultures. There are also important meals based around meat, such as the Filipino dish Lechon (involving an entire roasted pig). The temptations to continue the social norm can be overpowering, especially when there is a lack of vegetarian options.  The willpower to stick to what is normal outweighs the thoughts of where the meat comes originates.  What about people who live with their family and have no say in what they eat. There are many complex reasons why a person might find it hard to separate themselves from eating meat, and I believe Hopkins generalizes these people too much and makes them seem as though they are weak-willed or not trying hard enough. Maybe it would be more useful to dissect the root cause of why it is so hard for a person to quit meat rather than only blaming selfish motives and the ability to ignore the source of their meat.

Sources Cited:

Hopkins, P., & Dacey, A. (2008). Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?. Journal Of Agricultural And Environmental Ethics, 21(6), 579-596.

The topic surrounding the ethical consumption of meat (or unethical) is very relevant to my life and a lifestyle that is deep-rooted in the lives of many Albertan’s. In my opinion, becoming vegetarian should not be a hard expectation that we set but rather something we encourage and innovate to become as close to the current diet that non-vegetarian may have.

Personally, I’m not a vegetarian and I eat more meat than I’d like to admit, but learning about the impact of animal agriculture on global warming is something that makes me want to stop eating as much meat. I can’t see myself completely stopping, and the article mentioning meat grown in vitro as tissue culture is intriguing and reveals a potential second solution to the issues associated with a meat inclusive diet (Hopkins & Dacey, 2008). Growing meat cultures and allowing people to continue eating food as close to their preferred diet as possible without the impact on climate change or implications of animal cruelty is promising. The most difficult task to accomplish would be to convince people that it is safe to eat and to make something that has a familiar taste. Although in my opinion, this issue confuses me as the majority of food found in the grocery store contains additives that if people knew exactly what they’re eating they may share the same feeling about lab cultured meat as they do about a bag of Cheetos.

The decision made by the Edmonton City Council to vote against implementing a vegetarian/vegan food options for all events is a decision that I do not agree with. Even as someone who eats meat, I think that this would have been a good change. It would have set a good example to instill change without forcing anybody to change their lifestyle. In addition to the ethical reasons, this would have been inclusive of those already on a vegetarian/vegan diet without excluding those who eat meat. I would understand the result of the vote if the plan was to force everyone to become vegetarian or all city politicians but it wasn’t implementing any sort of change to people’s lifestyles outside of city events. This would have been a very forward way of thinking and would set a good example for the rest of the city and the province. The council faced extreme opposition from Albertan’s which is not surprising as prior to this vote many supporters of vegetarianism/veganism have been silenced or cancelled in our province. For example, K.D Lang, an Alberta born singer had many of her songs banned on Alberta radio stations when she came out as a supporter of the anti-meat movement (Butts, 2015).

For people who are serious about reducing their carbon footprint and becoming part of a movement that is focused on changing a major contributor to global warming, becoming vegetarian/vegan or even reducing the amount of meat consumed should be on the top of their list. In Alberta, a major producer and consumer of meat product, this goal has and will continue to face opposition. Without the leadership to set an example of positive change, proponents of this movement are faced with an extreme task. Although It is not impossible to achieve this goal especially with the innovations of lab cultured meat and outside pressure put on people in leadership to act on this issue similarly to the approach taken with other forms of pollution.

References Used:

Hopkins, P., & Dacey, A. (2008). Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?. Journal Of Agricultural And Environmental Ethics, 21(6), 579-596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-008-9110-0

Butts, S. (2015). Edmonton City Council faces divisive vote on whether to make all of its catered meals vegan or vegetarian | National Post. Nationalpost.com. Retrieved 6 October 2020, from https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/edmonton-city-council-faces-divisive-vote-on-whether-to-make-all-of-its-catered-meals-vegan-or-vegetarian.

Noah Mohr authored “A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes”. In it, he acknowledges that global warming is the most threatening environmental event that has occurred during the existence of humanity. But Mohr argues that we are misguided in focusing on carbon emissions, and instead should account for other methods of mitigating the effects of climate change (1). Mohr states that what may be the more effective strategy is implementing vegetarian diets (1). In this blog I want to explain Mohr’s argument as well as present a middle ground for North Americans who notoriously consume large amounts of meat and meat by-products. Mohr does want to stress that reducing carbon emissions is still vital to mitigating climate change, it’s just not the most effective method. As I said before, Mohr believes this more effective method is vegetarian diets, but where does this idea come from?

Large-scale consumption of “animal agriculture” produces large amounts of methane gas, which is 21 times worse in its role as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (2). Mohr’s stance is that this gas is the most important greenhouse gas that is not carbon dioxide, and the primary source of methane gas is animal agriculture (2). Mohr argues that due to the fact that methane emissions are responsible for nearly 50% of human caused global warming, methane reduction should be the priority (2). However, Mohr only briefly mentions the other sources of methane emissions, which include coal mining and landfills (2). According to Mohr, animal agriculture is the number one source of methane emissions, but he does not give us information about to what extent animal agriculture creates more greenhouse gas emissions (2). 

Though vegetarian diets would greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so would ending the use of coal and leading zero-waste lives. Furthermore, animal agriculture will remain in place to create animal by-products such as wool, eggs, milk, cheese, leather, etc. Given that this will remain in place, the only sure way to completely reduce methane emissions from animal agriculture is to implement vegan diets which would render the animal agricultural industry unusable. But this is impossible, because it is medically impossible for some humans to be vegan. Despite this, what irks me most about Mohr’s arguments is that he presents vegetarianism as the easy way out. 

Mohr’s main advantages for bolstering vegetarian diets over a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions are: limitless reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from animal agriculture, the rate at which greenhouse gas concentrations will lower in the atmosphere, and the difficulty in fighting wealthy business interests (3). The reasoning behind Mohr’s first advantage is mathematically false, the limit is 100% from this singular source. But solving this one climate issue does not solve the rest of climate change. Furthermore, I already presented that animal byproducts will continue to exist, meaning that we will never fully end animal agriculture. His second advantage I will concede is sound, as Mohr argues that the changes to diet lowers greenhouse gas emissions faster than reducing carbon dioxide emissions (3). This is due to the turnover rate for farms versus powerplants and coal mines, as well as an apparent immediate drop in methane emissions from an over-night implementation of vegetarian diets.

Mohr’s third advantage however is seriously flawed. Mohr argues that efforts to reduce carbon emissions involves fighting industries such as oil and automotive – both of which have wealthy business interests behind them (3). But what Mohr fails to account for is the money behind animal agriculture. If we were to implement vegetarian diets across the board, we must acknowledge the fact that we would be forcibly changing some people’s diets. The only way to do this is to implement laws through the government about the consumption of meat, which would require massive amounts of lobbying. What we need to acknowledge about this factor is that animal agriculture is a massive industry, and most likely has as much monetary and influential sway over the government as other greenhouse gas emitting industries do. Therefore, while I do agree with Mohr that a personal undertaking of a vegetarian diet on a massive scale would most likely be more beneficial in the short run than focusing on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, I do not see this happening. 

Given that the majority of North Americans do not prioritize mitigating climate change, I do not see them adhering to personal changes that would create massive changes in greenhouse gas emissions. Though my argument about Mohr’s third advantage was radical and took his reasoning to the extreme, this was necessary to show how difficult even achieving diet changes is. Lastly, I want to conclude by saying that there are no singular solutions to climate change. We as individuals can consume less meat, live minimally wasteful lifestyles, and even try to fight against industries that are largely responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. However, solving climate change does not rest on any singular person, and it is important to acknowledge this issue does not rest on individuals.

Noam Mohr. (2005). A New Global Warming Strategy.

From reading Hopkins and Dacey’s Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters? and Mohr’s A New Global Warming Strategy, I was intrigued about the ability of technology to possibly sizably reduce the methane emissions from factory farming, not to mention the countless animal lives it would save.

I agree with Hopkins and Dacey’s argument in favor of saving the animals while simultaneously satisfying meat eaters. And if Mohr’s article on tackling global warming via vegetarianism is correct in its scientific findings, then the idea of cultured meat should be considered. According to Mohr, “…the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture,” (2)  which surprised me, for I thought the oil and gas sector would be the top-most emitters of CO2. So based off of Mohr’s article, I turned to Hopkins and Dacey’s article about what we can do to combat the suffering of animals in factory farming, and I found they both also noted the damage that factory farming contributes to the environment. (585)

So could it be feasible to consume cultured meat, where the environment would be damaged less with less consumption of “real” meat? I think so. Considering the objections to cultured meat, there seems to not be any moral regard for animal suffering, at least not in some the objections raised by others that Hopkins and Dacey note: Danger, Cannibalism, Reality of Meat, Naturalness, Yuck factor, Technological fix is moral cowardice, and Wrong moral motivations. (585-590) While I can agree that the “Danger” and “Technological fix is moral cowardice” are some practical implications from eating cultured meat, the rest of these objections only seem to justify why not humans should stop eating “real” meat. What morality and considerability of sentient animals come from the “yuck factor”? It seems to me that there is only uncomfortableness for humans, whereas there is pain and suffering for countless animals.

This alternative to “real” meat allows one to eat realtively the same conception/taste/texture of meat, and at the same reduce/eliminate the environmental impacts that come factory farming. I brought up morals above, how animals need to be considered. Others might argue based on the immorality of selfishness, where we should “self sacrifice” meat and offer no alternative. I whole-heartedly agree with Hopkins and Dacey’s responses to this objection, that is consequentialist: our main goal here is not to boost our own moral self-regard…but to relieve animal suffering. (589)

So from these points above, we have sentientist/animal rights/biocentric/ecocentric arguments that essentially prove that possibly providing cultured meat for humans to consume will result in more benefits than negatives. Again, the negatives that come from cultured meat are reasonable concerns, where scientists must evaluate in the production of meat in the future. However, the impacts of the “real” meat industry as factory farms does more harm than good to the world at large, where every sentient/non-sentient being(including humans) is affected. Cultured meat, in my opinion, is a good possible alterative to “real” meat as the impact on animals and the environment would be minimal.

Works Cited

Hopkins, P.D., Dacey, A. Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?. J Agric Environ Ethics 21, 579–596 (2008). https://doi-org.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/10.1007/s10806-008-9110-0

Mohr, Noam. “A New Global Warming Strategy.” Earth Save International, 2005, http://www.earthsave.org/news/earthsave_global_warming_report.pdf

The case for vegetarianism

Recent environmental efforts have encouraged the public to eliminate their meat consumption to help tackle global warming [1][2][3][7][11]. However, many people are skeptical of the real impact that their diet might have on the environment [4], or recognize the effect but maintain their food practices because they love to eat meat. So should we become vegetarians? And if so, for what reasons? Throughout the course we have examined the views of different thinkers that might help us answer these questions. In the following essay I will focus on three of these perspectives: sentientism, ecofeminism, and climaterianism.

Firstly, we should become vegetarians to avoid animal suffering. Current farming practices limit animals’ freedom by confining them to cramped spaces, forcing them to eat, grow, and reproduce in a certain way, and finally killing them. Surely we wouldn’t treat other human beings in this way, mainly because we attribute members of the human species intrinsic worth (value that is independent from instrumental use). In his essay “All Animals Are Equal” [5] Peter Singer argues we should extend moral consideration to animal species because they are capable of suffering. According to Singer, our moral equality can’t depend on attributes such as rationality, awareness or self-consciousness because many people (like small children, disabled people, or elderly adults) don’t satisfy these conditions. Instead, he argues the entitlement to equal consideration derives from sentience (the capacity to suffer or enjoy). If we accept this position, being vegetarian is a logical choice that derives from the understanding that animals too deserve moral consideration.

Secondly, we should become vegetarians to stop perpetuating oppression. From an ecofeminist standpoint, animals and nature should not be used as instruments because there is an important connection between the domination of women and the domination of nature. In her essay “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” [6] Carol Adams argues we should recognize the similarities between the discourses that allow for the supremacy of men over women and the discourses that allow for the dominance of humans over non-human species. She also brings important arguments regarding the reasons people keep consuming animal meat regardless. One of these reasons is that consumption is experienced separately from production, which makes the animal absent from the act of eating. The food industry achieves this by making intensive farming invisible for the general population and presenting meat separately from what once was a living organism. 

Thirdly, we should become vegetarians to reduce our environmental footprint. In his article “A New Global Warming Strategy” [7], Noam Mohr addresses the wide range of impacts that intensive farming has on the climate system, especially the emission of methane gases that contribute to global warming. He argues people should become vegetarians in order to address global warming because methane has a large warming potential compared to other greenhouse gasses, remains less time in the atmosphere, and would allow for a faster and economically feasible transition. Aside from global warming, farming also contributes to other environmental issues like water and land use because feeding livestock requires a great amount of resources. In the following section I will expand on the impacts of methane on the atmosphere, and the role vegetarianism might play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the IPCC, agriculture, forestry and other types of land use account for 23% of human greenhouse gas emissions [8]. In the Amazon, for instance, 1.4 million hectares of rainforest are cut down every year primarily to make space for cattle ranching [9]. Deforestation not only endangers wildlife but also releases substantial amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, previously trapped in the biomass of the forest. Further, cattle ranching damages the soil and produces large amounts of methane. Two characteristics of atmospheric gases determine their strength and effect. First is the global warming potential (or GWP), which measures the radiative effect of each unit of gas over a specific period of time. Second is the atmospheric lifetime, which determines how long the gas stays in the atmosphere after being released [10]. Methane has a GWP 25 times stronger than carbon dioxide, and stays in the atmosphere for approximately 12 years (compared to to hundreds to thousands of years in the case of CO2). The farming industry generates large amounts of methane because animals like cows and sheep process food through enteric fermentation, which produces methane as a byproduct [11].

All in all, there are many reasons for becoming vegetarian. Rethinking our diets can improve environmental stability, reduce animal suffering and dismantle systems of oppression. So why aren’t people doing so? Why is meat consumption in fact increasing across most developed countries? One of the reasons is that vegetarianism is seen as a conflict over autonomy. As Adams explains in her article “rather than being seen as agents of consciousness raising legitimate issues, […] vegetarians are seen as violating others’ rights to their own pleasures.” [6] However, it is increasingly important to ask ourselves how significant is our autonomy compared to the suffering of millions of other sentient beings, and how much value we place on consumer choice over the thousands of years of climate instability that will follow if action is not taken quickly. 

Photo credit: Photo by Ella Olsson from Pexels  https://www.pexels.com/photo/flat-lay-photography-of-vegetable-salad-on-plate-1640777/

References

1. Greenpeace International. “Eat Less Meat, More Veg.” Greenpeace International, www.greenpeace.org/international/act/eat-less-meat/.
2. Drayer, Lisa. “How Your Diet Could Help Combat Climate Change in 2019.” CNN, Cable News Network, 2 Jan. 2019, www.cnn.com/2018/10/18/health/plant-based-diet-climate-change-food-drayer/index.htm
3. Poore, J., and T. Nemecek. (2018) “Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through Producers and Consumers.” Science, vol. 360, no. 6392, 2018, pp. 987–992., doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216.
4. Bailey, Ronald. “Why Giving Up Meat Won’t Have Much of an Effect on Climate Change.” Reason.com, Reason, 29 July 2019, reason.com/2019/07/29/why-giving-up-meat-wont-have-much-of-an-effect-on-climate-change/.
5. Singer, Peter (1974) “All Animals Are Equal,” Philosophic Exchange: Vol. 5: No. 1, Article 6. 103-116. Available at: http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol5/iss1/6
6. Carol Adams (1991) “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” Hypatia vol. 6, no. 1. 125-145
7. Noam Mohr (2005) “A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes” EarthSave International Report. 
8. Land is a Critical Resource, IPCC report says. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/2019/08/08/land-is-a-critical-resource_srccl/
9. Deforestation in the Amazon. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://wwf.panda.org/our_work/forests/deforestation_fronts2/deforestation_in_the_amazon/
10. Climate Change: From Learning to Action. UN CC: e-Learn 
11. Vox. (2020, May 13) Why beef is the worst food for the climate. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lrJYTsKdUM&feature=youtu.be

In his article titled “A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes,” Noam Mohr presents a markedly climatarian perspective (2005). Though Mohr doesn’t actually use the term “climatarian,” he supports climatarianism’s main idea that a vegetarian diet reduces one’s environmental footprint. Mohr provides relevant data behind the environmental impact of animal agriculture, especially in regard to methane production. In my opinion, however, he also minimizes the importance of reducing carbon dioxide emissions while ignoring harmful effects of aerosols. Here I will explore some of these points, in addition to examining Mohr’s claims through biocentric and ecocentric frameworks.

In supporting his position, Mohr provides some scientific background outlining the climate impacts of raising livestock. He explains, for example, that in comparison to other greenhouse gases, methane contributes disproportionately to global warming (Mohr 2005, 2). Seeing as the primary contributor to methane production is animal agriculture, it’s clear why a person would become vegetarian for environmental reasons. Methane is, as Mohr specifies, a form of carbon 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide (2005, 2). Given its production through livestock digestive processes and farm animal waste, there’s a strong case for reducing meat consumption as method of climate change mitigation (Mohr 2005, 2).

Yet Mohr proposes that we should shift our focus from CO2 emissions reduction to methane reduction by vegetarianism. Though, as Mohr explains, carbon dioxide is not the only, nor the most powerful contributor to global warming, he also states that “aerosols actually have a cooling effect on global temperatures, and the magnitude of this cooling approximately cancels out the warming effect of CO2,” since aerosols are often released alongside CO2 (2005, 1). This statement is concerning in several ways, not the least of which is lack of consideration for the global ecosystem.

From both an ecocentric and biocentric perspective, Mohr’s claim that vegetarianism is the best way to fight climate change dismisses the importance of interacting environmental factors. While biocentrism and ecocentrism differ in their definition of the morally considerable entity, both ethical frameworks acknowledge the importance of ecological interactions in advancing the good of that entity. In the case of biocentrism, ecological interactions are seen as a web supporting the flourishing of individual living beings (Taylor 1981, 209). Ecocentrists, meanwhile, maintain that the ecosystem itself is what we should consider when making ethical decisions. In both cases, a holistic consideration of interacting ecological factors is necessary.

Since climate change affects the entire global ecosystem, it is imperative to examine interactions between its contributing factors. For example, though the aerosols often produced alongside carbon dioxide do indeed have a short-term cooling effect on the earth’s surface, they are not evenly spread out, meaning some regions will experience warming effects while others may not (NASA 2010). Moreover, aerosols can produce negative impacts in the form of black carbon, which speeds the melting of ice caps (NASA 2010).

In other words, although carbon dioxide is certainly not the only greenhouse gas, nor the most threatening one, efforts to reduce its emissions should not be ignored in favour of promoting vegetarianism. Both strategies should work together, along with a plethora of others, to address climate change.

So: is vegetarianism the solution to climate change? In my opinion, there is no catch-all “most effective tool” to solve climate change. I think most biocentrists and ecocentrists would agree, given the importance of ecological interactions in valuing life and ecosystems. Therefore, a variety of solutions that consider these interactions is necessary. A vegetarian diet is certainly one effective way to reduce environmental footprints, but it should be accompanied by a combination of efforts that consider the global ecosystem and its interacting components.

-Mary

References:

Mohr, Noam. 2005. “A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are OverlookingVegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes.” EarthSave International, August, 2005. http://www.earthsave.org/news/earthsave_global_warming_report.pdf.

Taylor, Paul. 1981. “The Ethics of Respect for Nature.” Environmental Ethics. 3: 197-218. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/97bd/6dee0cea03c2bdba21efa4176c316938892b.pdf.

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 2010. “Aerosols and Incoming Sunlight (Direct Effects).” Updated November 2, 2010. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Aerosols/page3.php#:~:text=Aerosols%20can%20have%20a%20major%20impact%20on%20climate%20when%20they%20scatter%20light.&text=In%20addition%20to%20scattering%20or,and%20produce%20a%20warming%20effect.

Can we have the best of both worlds with a delicious juicy hamburger and no animal harm involved? Patrick Hopkins and Austin Dacey do an excellent job exploring that issue in their paper Vegetarian meat: could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters? 

They describe how many people are opposed to animal suffering but they still eat meat. I think this can be best explained by cognitive dissonance. This is a psychological phenomena where people hold views or cognitions which are in conflict with their behaviours. More on the topic here (https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cognitive-dissonance-2795012). People enjoy the taste of meat but there is an obvious disconnect between the living animal who had its own life and then suffered and died to become wrapped in plastic at the supermarket (Hopkins and Dacey (page 1). However, there seems to be a potential way to cure ourselves of this cognitive dissonance and not have to sacrifice taste. With advances in food science and biotechnology of tissue culture, meat could be grown without killing animals. 

Before exploring this further I wanted to examine the problem of how eating meat and caring animals poses a problem. Dacy and Hopkins describe an example of how people enjoy cooking shows, but if a chef dragged out a lamb and slaughtered it on screen, most people would lose interest in the lamb recipes to follow (Dacy and Hopkins page 1). An Israeli commercial has gone ahead and done the same thing. The commercial shows a couple looking for extra fresh lamb, but when the butcher shows them what extra fresh lamb looks like, they look less than pleased. You can watch the add at this link  https://youtu.be/psdtyJ2aizI and read more about it by following this link https://www.euronews.com/living/2020/09/15/live-lamb-used-in-provocative-new-vegan-commercial-in-israel

After establishing why there is an ethical problem with eating meat Hopkins and Dacy go onto describe the techniques of growing meat in a lab. These techniques include scaffolding techniques, self organizing tissue culture, organ printing, bio-photonics, and nanotechnology. It would take some time for me to sum up all the technology which is used, but they are all described in detail within the paper linked above pages 3-6 of the pdf. 

What I would like to consider is whether or not this lab meat is going to be a good solution and what could be wrong with this. Some people are obsessed with the reality of meat. People claim they are carnivores, and think that lab meat will never be real. However lab meat would be identical to the meat that comes from an animal in terms of its texture, protein and real flesh (Hopkins and Dacey, page 9). People also have the concern that it’s not natural and its not good for you. However, not everything which is natural can be good for us (Hopkins and Darcey page 9). Arsenic is natural, but we certainly wouldn’t want to eat that. Radium is natural and look what that did for Marie Curie.

These are just some of the potential objections raised. Another one which I had not mentioned is that people think this lab meat might start turning us into Hannibal Lecter. If we could replicate and grow animal tissue then we could replicate human tissue. Oh no, we might become cannibals. People can come up with a lot of objections to lab meat. In the paper there are certainly more objections than support.

What follows is a personal opinion which I will validate with a psychological theory. I think its easier to accept lab meat than it is to reject it. I think we all want to be compassionate, caring people who do not cause animals to suffer. Then we take some time and then try to come up with all of these objections. 

The psychological theory I’m going to describe is a cognitive theory by Daniel Kahneman. He describes two systems. System one is fast and makes judgments quickly. System two is slower and more deliberative https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kahneman-excerpt-thinking-fast-and-slow/. I think System one supports lab meat and System two comes up with all these reasons why lab meat is objectionable. Some people might argue that System two is more rational but I think we should trust our base instincts when they tell us we don’t want to harm animals. I think the majority of people do not want to harm animals. In this day and age, we don’t have to. We can have meat with no animal harm, and to me that is a glorious thing.

~Shantel Mills

This week in Philosophy 355, we shift our concentration from non-anthropocentric critiques to the practical issue of Climaterianism. Here, the fundamental concerns are the ways in which human activities may contribute to global warming and their subsequent impact on climate change. One of the greatest contributions to this phenomenon involves intensive animal agriculture, which degrades environmental resources and releases greenhouse gases like methane that are more strenuous to the Earth’s well-being than Carbon Dioxide (Welchman, 2020, UofA eclass). While this is the case, methane gas remains in earth’s atmosphere for significantly less time than CO2 and Climaterians thus argue that we can protect our global environment by adopting dietary practices that reject intensive agricultural processes (i.e. through plant-based diets).

One of the ways to advocate for the adoption of plant-based diets is by drawing a correlation between the oppression of animals via agricultural processes and the oppression of other marginalized groups. In Kymblicka and Donaldson’s ‘Animals Rights, Multiculturalism, and the Left’ and Carol J. Adam’s ‘Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals’, both authors argue that there is a discrepancy between the leftist’s groups fighting against oppression and the seeming indifference of these same groups towards violence against animals. This may stem out of fear that the advocation of animal rights will end up undermining the struggles of other disadvantage groups, which is something that both authors strongly challenge. In order to overcome the oppression of all ontological beings, we must begin to reconsider the relationship we have with animals through our dietary practices.

Both authors argue that advocating for animal rights will not displace attention from other oppressed groups. According to Kymblicka and Donaldson, highlighting a new form of injustice actually does the opposite and serves to strengthen the salience of injustice altogether (119). It may also help illuminate interconnected ideologies of domination, which are used to underwrite oppression in many domains of life (Kymlicka and Donaldson, 119).

One example of this is the connection drawn by ecofeminists between the domination of women and that of nature (Adams, 127). Historically speaking, women and the earth have been treated merely as means to an end by the dominant members of society. The two have been exploited, controlled and discredited of their inherit value in order to satisfy the preferences of their oppressors. If ecofeminists are able to draw a correlation between gender and nature on the basis of this exploitation, then why is it so troubling to do the same for animals (who themselves are a part of said nature)? it is morally inconsistent and absolutely contradicting for ecofeminists to ignore the exploitation of animals through agricultural processes because they serve as a satisfaction to the means of their end.

Both authors also contest that failing to acknowledge an animals right to live via our dietary practices may contribute to deepened inequalities among marginalized groups. Species Narcissism, the idea that human life is superior to that other animals, operates at the expense of oppressed groups (Kymlicka and Donaldson, 120). Kymblicka and Donaldson argue that the more species narcissism is used to make concrete distinctions between the two groups, the more justifiable it is for oppressors to dehumanize marginalized groups (120). If groups fighting against oppression wish to have their interests met and values considered, then they must acknowledge that animals (as an oppressed group) also possess valued traits and emotions that are of equal consideration.

Adams argues that eco-feminists have failed as a group to consider what it means to be a being (129). Because the animals are in a state of death upon consumption and communication is absent, we often fail to remember that animals are independent entities (Adams, 136). Just as woman and other oppressed groups adopt submissive roles and are often censored by the dominant members of the social hierarchy, animals are incapable of contesting their fate and the end result is exploitation with irreversible damage. Both authors thus reiterate that when marginalized groups fail to consider this through their eating practices, it enables oppressors to justify the mistreatment of their behaviour as well.

Lastly, the failure to acknowledge animal rights through diet is inconsistent with the fight of marginalized groups against their established natural roles in society. According to Kymlicka and Donaldson, many of these roles can be culturally constructed. For example, dominant societal groups have often justified their power over minorities by structuring the subsequent cultural practices of these groups as ‘backward’ or ‘barbaric’ (Kymlicka and Donaldson, 121).  This ethnocentric mindset has often served to legitimatize the idea that certain marginalized groups are irresponsible and ill-equipped to handle positions of power, which has prevented them from rising up the social hierarchy. Adams argues that the same may go for women, whose subordination to man is often regarded as being their ‘natural’ position in society (135).

Just as women’s subordination to men is often seen as natural and inevitable, Adams argues that meat has been culturally constructed to appear so as well. Through various means of socialization, eating meat has been rationalized as a natural and necessary means of human life.  The subsequent abuse and exploitation of animals associated with meat production is therefore legitimatized by preserving the harmony and natural ways of earth life.  If Feminists and other marginalized groups operate to challenge their pre-determined positions in society, then it is morally inconsistent of them to eat animals on the basis of this same principle.

In conclusion, adopting a plant-based diet may serve to strengthen the fight of oppression amongst all disadvantaged groups.

– Deanne

Work Cited:

Adams, Carol J. (1991). “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals’, in Hypatia.

Will Kymlicka and Sue Donaldson. (2014). “Animal Rights, Multiculturalism, and the Left”, in Journal of Social Psychology.

In Mohr’s article he takes an anthropocentric position and presents vegetarianism and veganism as a “New Global Warming Strategy”. He brings global warming to light as a very threatening and urgent problem to humans. However, my reflection on it will bring light to the weak and contradictory points he makes in defending his argument, which I believe weakens his argument substantially. This reflection is not meant to disagree with his overall ideas, instead it will analyze where Mohr has gone wrong in presenting his arguments.

“If we wish to curb global warming over the coming half century, we    must look at strategies to address non-CO2 emissions. The strategy with the most impact is vegetarianism.”[1]

Mohr’s argument is strange in that in trying to present the meat industry as problematic to our environment he deduces global warming to one source. He has made strong claims backed up by sufficient evidence of the impact of our diets on the environment and the importance of bringing this into light. However, at the same time in making this argument he ultimately comes across in saying not to worry about Co2 emissions, it is not a problem. Personally, I think his argument could be stronger, I agree with Mohr that humans have long turned a blind eye to the problems our diets are creating. He has made some constructive points in claiming vegetarianism or veganism would have a quick and crucial impact on the current climate crisis and I wish he had explored the benefits of this idea more rather than posing it against Co2 emissions, both sides are fighting for the same outcome and would more successfully work together rather than against each other. In an anthropocentric view we should be concerned about all of the threats to global warming and resource depletion not just one.

Another issue I have with Mohr is his argument that we should cut emissions from the meat industry and do nothing about Co2 emissions in order to save the economy. “similar cuts in carbon dioxide are impossible without devastating effects on the economy. Even the most ambitious carbon dioxide reduction strategies fall short of cutting emissions by half.”[2] Firstly, like anything if the industry was cut, he is wrong to claim that it would have no impact on the economy as the meat industry is massive and employs a huge number of people. I also take issue with this argument because his priorities are contradictory, in that he states to us that global warming is the biggest issue we are facing but then places the economy above and as more important. I do not think that this is his intention but in comparing the two strategies he is certainly contradicting his beliefs.

Many signs point to yes, we should be climatarians and practice veganism or vegetarianism. The harms to the environment and animals seem to evidently outweigh selfish benefits. However, it is also evident that through separation of the process and personal benefit this is not an easy or probable transition. I would however, challenge Mohr in his claims that environmentalists have overlooked vegetarianism as a solution for climate change. Recently, there has been a notable shift in how society interacts with the meat industry. One example being the film “food inc.” which has been incorporated into public education and ultimately went viral. This tells me that many people are aware of the impacts of meat but that doesn’t shift them away. The second example of this shift is the emergence of “beyond meat”. But with this shift, a meat alternative is offered and while some choose to opt for this option majority of society is still very invested in the meat industry. With this evidence I think that the lack of knowledge about the impacts of the meat industry is not the problem like Mohr claims, but even with some knowledge the morals of people are lying somewhere else.

In conclusion, I do not disagree with Mohr that the meat industry is having a huge impact on our environment. However, with the environment being the centre of his argument we should not disengage with other forms of destruction. Further, in considering why humans should care it is no longer a lack of knowledge but where the morals of humans must be further explored.

Alison

[1] Mohr, Noam. “A New Global Warming Strategy.” Earthsave International Report, August, 2005. http://www.earthsave.org/news/earthsave_global_warming_report.pdf

[2] Mohr, “A New Global Warming Strategy.”

References

Mohr, Noam. “A New Global Warming Strategy.” Earthsave International Report, August, 2005. http://www.earthsave.org/news/earthsave_global_warming_report.pdf