Agricultural Ethics - An Invitation [1st ed.] 9783030489342, 9783030489359

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xi
Introduction (Robert L. Zimdahl)....Pages 1-6
From Weed Control to Ethics (Robert L. Zimdahl)....Pages 7-22
Agriculture: A Brief History (Robert L. Zimdahl)....Pages 23-50
World Population: Three Views (Robert L. Zimdahl)....Pages 51-61
Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas (Robert L. Zimdahl)....Pages 63-91
Ethics in Agriculture and Other Disciplines (Robert L. Zimdahl)....Pages 93-106
Seeking Common Ground (Robert L. Zimdahl)....Pages 107-119
Ethical Puzzles (Robert L. Zimdahl)....Pages 121-167
Back Matter ....Pages 169-173

Citation preview

Robert L. Zimdahl

Agricultural Ethics - An Invitation

Agricultural Ethics - An Invitation

Robert L. Zimdahl

Agricultural Ethics - An Invitation

Robert L. Zimdahl Department of Agricultural Biology Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-48934-2    ISBN 978-3-030-48935-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48935-9 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Nature never deceives us; we deceive ourselves.

v

Acknowledgments

It is my firm belief that there is no such thing as good writing. Revising and rewriting are required to create a book. This book owes an enormous debt of gratitude to the thoughts and insights of the many authors cited. Their work has made this book possible. Special thanks are owed to the many colleagues and friends who have read and commented on sections of the book. I acknowledge the friendship, guidance, helpful criticism, and questions offered by each of the following colleagues: Dr. James Boyd, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University Dr. Daniel Beachy-Quick, Professor, Department of English, Colorado State University Mr. Wade Casey, Fort Collins, CO Dr. Michael Dewey, Fort Collins, CO Dr. Thomas O. Holtzer, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University Dr. David Lehman, M.D., Fort Collins, CO Ms. Gail McKenzie, Fort Collins, CO Ms. Deborah Sullivan, South Wales, NY Dr. Paul B. Thompson, Professor, Michigan State University Dr. A. Wayne Viney, Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University Dr. Benjamin Withers, Dean College of Liberal Arts, Colorado State University I also acknowledge the thoughtful, often quite critical, but helpful comments of four anonymous reviewers.

vii

Contents

1 Introduction ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   1 Notes��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  5

2 From Weed Control to Ethics����������������������������������������������   7 1 My Journey ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   7 2 My Quest��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  11 3 The Big Questions������������������������������������������������������������������������������  12 4 The University������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  15 5 Two Cultures ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  17 6 Responsibility ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  19 Notes������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  19

3 Agriculture: A Brief History������������������������������������������������  23 1 A Brief Story of Agriculture ��������������������������������������������������������������  23 1.1 The Blood, Sweat, and Tears Era���������������������������������������������������������������������  23 1.2 The Mechanical Era�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  25 1.3 The Chemical Era���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  27

2 Beginning the Study of Weeds������������������������������������������������������������  30 3 Advantages of Agricultural Technology: Pesticides ��������������������������  36 3.1 Energy���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  36 3.2 Time/Profit�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  37 3.3 Labor and Soil Tillage Requirements���������������������������������������������������������������  38

4 Disadvantages of Pesticides����������������������������������������������������������������  39 4.1 Cost�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  39 4.2 Mammalian Toxicity�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  39 4.3 Environmental Persistence�������������������������������������������������������������������������������  40 4.4 Resistance���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  40 4.5 Monoculture�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  40 4.6 Other�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  41

5 The Paradox����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  42 Notes������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  45

ix

x

Contents

4 World Population: Three Views ������������������������������������������  51 1 Cassandra and Pollyanna��������������������������������������������������������������������  53 2 Rev. T. R. Malthus������������������������������������������������������������������������������  54 3 Karl Marx��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  57 4 Meadows and the Limits to Growth����������������������������������������������������  59 Notes������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  60

5 Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas��������������������������������������������  63 1 The Environment��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  65 2 Concerns About Agriculture ��������������������������������������������������������������  66 2.1 Sustainability ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  67 2.2 Pesticides ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  69 2.3 Antibiotics �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  70 2.4 Exploitation of and Cruelty to Migrant Labor�������������������������������������������������  70 2.5 Loss of Biodiversity�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  71 2.6 Animals�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  71 2.7 Biotechnology and GMOs �������������������������������������������������������������������������������  72

3 CRISPR����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  77 3.1 Mining Water ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  79 3.2 The Environment ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  80 3.3 Bioenergy���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  80

4 Concluding Comment ������������������������������������������������������������������������  80 Notes������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  84

6 Ethics in Agriculture and Other Disciplines����������������������  93 1 Surveys������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  95 2 The University������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  96 3 The Ethical Dimension ����������������������������������������������������������������������  98 Notes����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  104

7 Seeking Common Ground��������������������������������������������������  107 1 This Book’s Purpose: An Invitation��������������������������������������������������  109 2 Agriculture’s Paradigm ��������������������������������������������������������������������  110 3 Approaching Moral Issues����������������������������������������������������������������  112 3.1 A Few Examples���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  112 3.2 The US Corn System �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  113 3.3 The Land Grant System���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  113 3.4 The Classroom: Teaching Agricultural Ethics�����������������������������������������������  115 3.5 Organic Agricultural Programs�����������������������������������������������������������������������  116

4 A Few Final Words ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  117 Notes����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  118

8 Ethical Puzzles ��������������������������������������������������������������������  121 1 Ethical Puzzle Response Guide��������������������������������������������������������  122 1.1 Case Study 1: To Spray or Not To Spray? �����������������������������������������������������  123 1.2 Case Study 2: The Utility of Inaction�������������������������������������������������������������  128 1.3 Case Study 3: Family Farms—Agriculture and Urbanization�����������������������  133 1.4 Case Study 4: Food Aid ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  143

Contents

xi 1.5 Case Study 5: The Land���������������������������������������������������������������������������������  148 1.6 Case Study 6: Egg Machines �������������������������������������������������������������������������  154 1.7 Case Study 7: The Legitimate Use of Water���������������������������������������������������  162 1.8 Case Study 8: Possums—Genetic Engineering and Protecting the Environment���������������������������������������������������������������������  166

Index��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  169

Chapter 1

Introduction

The book’s intent is to encourage thought and discussion and offer some recommendations on how to proceed to a mutually agreeable consensus on agriculture’s ethical dilemmas and on how to address them. I do not intend to present a thorough discussion of moral philosophy and ethical theories or provide another justification of the need for discussion of agricultural ethics within the agricultural community. Others have adequately discussed moral philosophy and ethical theories applicable to agriculture: American Society of Agronomy Aiken 1996 Appiah 2008 Berry 1977 Blatz 1991 Burkhardt et al. 2005 Chrispeeels 2004 Comstock 2002 Daly and Townsend 1993 Gendel, Kline, Warren, and Yates 1990 Hanson 1986 Hartel, George, and Vorst 1994 Jackson, Berry, and Coleman 1984 Kirschenmann 2010 Lehman 1985 Lockeretz 1997 Rachels and Rachels 2010 Sherlock and Morrey 2992 Thompson 1994, 1995, and 1998 Wojcik 1989: (see endnote1)

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. L. Zimdahl, Agricultural Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48935-9_1

1

2

1 Introduction

This book supports my claim that my agricultural colleagues have avoided addressing the moral dimensions of the human, environmental, and social problems agriculture has caused. The list above is clear evidence that this is not the first time agriculture’s moral dilemmas (Chap. 5) have been identified. The book’s purpose is to extend an invitation to those who practice agriculture and those who are concerned about it to begin to examine their views of how agriculture is practiced and then more thoroughly consider, discuss, and respond to the public’s concern about the moral issues current agricultural practices raise. Adoption of a new range of thought about the purpose and necessity of agriculture and its technology will avoid remaining in what Merton2 calls “the collective arrogance….of his own herd.” Jane Addams reminded us of the risks of herds: “We know instinctively that if we grow contemptuous of our fellows, and consciously limit our intercourse to certain kinds of people whom we have previously decided to respect, we not only tremendously circumscribe our range of life, but limit the scope of our ethics” (p. 10).3 I hope the book will be read and discussed by professors, researchers, department heads, deans, senior administrators of land-grant universities, employees of agricultural technology developers and suppliers, undergraduate and graduate students in a range of disciplines, representatives of environmental organic groups, and the general public. The desired result is that readers will engage in a collective conversation about agriculture and recognize that if those engaged in agriculture continue to fail to realize and thus ignore the important problems, they will be addressed and resolved by societal pressure and political action, which may not yield the resolution those engaged in agriculture would choose. The book will not resolve the moral dilemmas identified. It asks why nearly all involved in agriculture have not addressed the concerns of the general public, and it invites all interested parties to begin the discussion. The agricultural enterprise extols the virtues and necessity of the presently very productive, chemical, capital, and energy-intensive system, which, in the minds of many, is not sustainable. The foundational justification of those committed to modern agricultural practice rests on the pragmatic claim that the system is successful and the compelling moral claim that it has and will continue to feed the world’s population. Organic agriculture and conservation agriculture, they argue, are fine especially for those who can afford the products. But it cannot feed the world. That argument ignores the fact that decades of scientific research have developed the technology that supports our modern agricultural system, whereas there has been comparatively little research on alternative agricultural systems. The question remains whether or not the prevailing moral justification of feeding the world is adequate given the issues confronting agriculture: sustainability; pollution of soil, water, and food; harm to and loss of other species; habitat destruction; availability of surface water and groundwater; biotech/GMOs; corporate agriculture; the power of agribusiness; exploitation of and cruelty to migrant labor; and the nutritional value of our food. Farmers want to farm in ways that ensure they can farm again tomorrow. They hope to be economically successful and environmentally responsible stewards of the land, but economic necessity too often requires violating good stewardship. I am confident that most farmers wish to farm in what Wes Jackson, Wendell Berry, and

1 Introduction

3

Fred Kirschenmann would agree is the right way. It is a way that emphasizes sustainability of the agricultural system, ecological health of the land, and economic health of the farmer. The industrial agricultural system compels farmers to practice an agriculture that satisfies the demands of the market and may simultaneously ignore environmental sustainability and good stewardship. Farmers produce to survive, and they cannot change their practices without help from agricultural research institutions and the government. This book claims that there has been avoidance of value questions and consideration of what ought to be done as well as what can be done. For example, 40% of US corn, a chemical, energy-intensive, and dominantly GMO crop, is used to produce ethanol for cars rather than food for people. If the moral justification for US agriculture is feeding people, corn productionfails.4 It is my view that most of those engaged in agriculture in the world’s developed countries have a definite, unexamined moral confidence, a certainty, about the correctness of what they do. This book examines the origin of that confidence and raises questions about its validity. Does the fact that the US and the world’s other developed countries produce a great abundance of food justify everything that agriculture does? Should those engaged in agriculture continue to ignore or easily dismiss the legitimate concerns of the general public about the issues mentioned above that modern developed country agriculture has created? It is time to listen, begin to understand, care about, and respond to the public’s concerns. One of the tenets of a democratic society is consent of the governed. Anyone who visits with friends or neighbors about the practice of agriculture or the quality of our food and who reads a good newspaper or thoughtful magazines or other news sources is aware that citizens of democratic societies are clearly reluctant to continue to entrust their water, their diets, and other natural resources blindly into the hands of farmers, agribusiness firms, and agricultural scientists. Their concerns are real, and continuing to ignore them will affect agriculture’s future efforts to feed people. My agricultural colleagues know how to and regularly distinguish right and wrong. They want to do what is right. This book invites them to begin to think about the necessity of identifying agriculture’s moral problems and finding commonalities when designing agricultural practices that include a primary goal of doing no harm. In addition to the admirable moral goal of feeding a growing population, those who practice agriculture must practice good stewardship of the land, care for the environment, reduce the risk of agricultural technology, and seek dialog and understanding with those who object to agricultural practice. I decided the best way to begin is with the story of my intellectual journey into moral philosophy (Chap. 2). The journey inevitably led me to a critical study of the basic principles and concepts of my discipline. My educational experience never included a class or even a discussion of philosophy. When I was a student and during my professional life, we did not talk about views or theories of moral philosophy. When I was a student, I don’t recall hearing the word sustainable, and the environment was acknowledged, but was not endangered. My view is that the lack in my and my colleagues education affected my career goals, significantly my intellectual direction, and influences my discipline.

4

1 Introduction

Chapter 3 is a brief introduction to pesticides in agriculture based on my weed science experience with herbicides and how they have come to dominate developed country agriculture and much of the world. It ends with the paradox of pesticide use in agriculture, one of agriculture’s problems, which illustrates the complexity of agriculture’s moral dilemmas. Chapter 4 offers three views of the world’s population and the challenge of feeding a growing world population. Agriculture is dominated by the Malthusian view that the problem is biological—too many people producing too many children. That view is contrasted with the view of Karl Marx who thought the problem was not biological, but social. The population problem has not been created by poor, uneducated people who produce too many children It has been created by a social system that has not been designed to care for all, and it could be solved by modifications of that system. Chapter 5 outlines my view of agriculture’s most significant moral dilemmas. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. It includes discussion of sustainability which everyone favors. The agricultural community’s view that what must be sustained is production is contrasted with other views that the environment, other creatures, public health, small farms, and rural communities must be considered and while production is important, other criteria should often be primary. Biotechnology is the new, exciting scientific frontier in agriculture and other disciplines. Significant questions about the purpose of biotechnology will be explored. It is reasonable to posit that those engaged in many professions have a well-­ known developed code of professional ethics. Chapter 6 presents data on the ethical standards promulgated by several disciplines (medicine, law, psychology) and compares them with some agricultural disciplines that have a publicly stated code of professional ethics. Several major agricultural disciplines are explicit about the role of ethics especially related to professional conduct. Almost no disciplines have specific statements of how their practitioners are to deal with the most difficult ethical questions—the meta-ethical questions, which in a simple form are as follows: How does one decide what to do? How does one know that what is chosen is the right thing to do? Chapter 7 describes a route to common ground for the resolution of existing moral dilemmas. The chapter identifies obvious yet unexplored common ground that is available to address the moral dilemmas presented in Chap. 5 and suggests ways to proceed. Increasing production is required, but is not a justification for all aspects of agricultural technology which impose real and perceived risks to the environment and all who must eat. Failure to consider the ethical dimension of the agricultural enterprise and engage in realistic discussions about its successes and failures leads to the risk of losing public support and understanding. All of those engaged in agriculture have personal and professional ethics which guide their behavior. Extending their ethical thought to the larger agricultural realm is needed to create and sustain a strong ethical foundation for agriculture. Chapter 8 includes eight ethical puzzles that are legitimate worldwide agricultural and environmental issues. The primary purpose of their inclusion is not to promote or provoke discussion although that is a desirable result. It is to enable

1 Introduction

5

discussion. They are guides for discussion. A response form is included in the introduction to the chapter. The eight puzzles with a brief description are as follows: Puzzles Title 1 To spray or not to spray 2. 3. 4.

5.

6.

7. 8.

Comment Applicable to most farms in developed countries and many in developing countries The utility of inaction An agricultural moral dilemma Family farms Applicable to many agricultural areas Food aid Illustrates a problem associated with green revolution technology, although it is not intended to be only a criticism of the green revolution The land This case cites Wendell Berry and includes university scientist’s recommendations on reduction of nitrogen fertilizer. The puzzle presents a legitimate agricultural critique Egg machines When increasing public concern about cruelty to farm animals is combined with the rapid advances in genetic engineering, it is possible that this and other presently hypothetical instances of genetic engineering will become possible Legitimate use of water All of the world’s irrigated agricultural areas are concerned about the future of their water Genetic engineering and This puzzle is about genetic engineering and the increasing agricultural and environmental problems with invasive protecting the environment—possums species

Notes 1. Aiken, W. and H. Lafollette (Ed). 1996. World Hunger and Morality, 2nd Ed. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 267 pp. American Society of Agronomy. 1994. Agricultural Ethics: Issues for the 21st century. Madison, WI. Publication number 57. 157 pp. Appiah, K.A. 2008. Experiments in Ethics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 274 pp. Berry, W. 1977. The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture. Sierra Club books, San Francisco, California. 228 pp. Blatz, C.  V. 1991. Ethics in Agriculture-An anthology of current issues in world context. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. 674 pp. Burkhardt, J., G.  Comstock, P.G.  Hartel, and P.B.  Thompson. 2004. Agricultural ethics. CAST – Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Issue paper number 29. 12 pp. Chrispeels, M.J. 2004. Agricultural Ethics in a Changing World. The 14 articles in the collection have been re-paginated. The original plant physiology volume and pagination are shown in the foot line in the first page of the article. 95 pp.

6

1 Introduction

Comstock, G. (Ed). 2002. Life Science Ethics. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. 308 pp. Daly, H. E. and K.N. Townsend. 1993. Valuing the Earth – Economics, ecology, and ethics. MIT press, Cambridge, MA. 313 pp. Gendel, S.M., A.D.  Kline, D.M.  Warren, and F.  Yates. 1990. Agricultural Bioethics – Implications of Agricultural Bioethics. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. 357 pp. Hanson, V.P. 1986. Fields Without Dreams  – Defending the agrarian idea. The Free Press, NY. 289 pp. Hartel, P.G., K.P. George, and J. Vorst. 1994. Agricultural ethics issues for the 21st century. American Society of Agronomy. Special publication number 57. 70 pp. Jackson, W., W. Berry and B. Coleman (Ed.). 1984. Meeting the Expectations of the Land. Essays in sustainable agriculture and stewardship. North Point Press, San Francisco, CA. Kirschenmann, F.  L. 2010. Cultivating an Ecological Conscience. Essays from a farmer philosopher. Counterpoint Press, Berkeley, CA. 403 pp. Lehman, H. 1995. Rationality and Ethics in Agriculture. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID 228 pp. Lockeretz, W. 1997. Visions of American Agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames IA. 243 pp. Rachels, J. and S. Rachels. 2010. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw Hill, NY. 203 pp. Sherlock, R. and J.D. Morrey (Eds). 2002. Ethical Issues in Biotechnology. Rowman, Littlefield Pub. Inc. NY. Thompson, P. B., R. J. Matthews and E. O. van Ravenswaay. 1994. Ethics, Public Policy, and Agriculture. Macmillan publishing Co., NY. 268 pp. Thompson, P. B. 1995. The Spirit of 4 Routledge, London, UK 196 pp. Thompson, P. B. 1998. Agricultural Ethics, Research, Teaching, and Public Policy. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. 239 pp. Wojcik, J. 1989. The Arguments of Agriculture: A Casebook in Contemporary Agricultural Controversy. Purdue University press, West Lafayette, Indiana. 123 pp. 2. Merton, T. 1996. Letter to an Innocent Bystander, p.53–62 of Raids on The Unspeakable. New Directions Publishing Corporation. New York. 182 pp. 3. Addams, J. 1907. Democracy and Social Ethics. MacMillan & Co. London. 281 pp. 4. Foley, J. 2013. It is time to rethink America’s corn system. 13 pp. Available only on-line https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/system. Accessed June 2018.

Chapter 2

From Weed Control to Ethics

1  My Journey After completing my bachelor’s degree in dairy husbandry at Cornell University and 2 years as an Officer in the US Marine Corps, I applied for and was accepted as an Assistant County Agricultural Agent in Columbia County, NY. The title didn’t have quite the same cachet as First Lieutenant in the US Marine Corps, but it was in agriculture. I was 23 and in charge of the dairy extension program. The job expected me to contact dairy farmers in Columbia County and assume that I knew enough to give advice to someone who had been a dairy farmer for more years than I had been alive. A second aspect of the job was to find out what problems or questions the farmers had and seek advice from Professors at Cornell that I could extend to the farmers. I do not recall ever seeking or receiving advice from a Cornell Professor or offering advice to a Columbia County dairy farmer. Many of my extension service colleagues, especially those who worked with fruit and vegetable growers, regularly worked with and recommended organochlorine insecticides such as DDT or one of its chemical relatives and one or more organophosphate insecticides, which eventually drew thoughtful, correct criticism. Only later did Rachel Carson write about the inevitable environmental and human harm of DDT and its relatives in her best-selling 1962 book Silent Spring. I didn’t know enough to evaluate and responsibly comment. In 1960, Dr. Stanford N. Fertig, Professor of Weed Science in Cornell University’s Department of Agronomy, came to Columbia County. He had designed a weed control experiment with herbicides. It was my first encounter with herbicides. He gave me a Hudson pump-up sprayer and several small paper bags each containing a powdered herbicide. I mixed the contents of each bag separately in 3 gallons of water and sprayed the mixture on each of 4 plots (4 corn rows wide by 30 ft. long). As the season progressed, some of the plots had absolutely no weeds. The check plot that had not received any herbicide was full of weeds. I was very impressed with the

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. L. Zimdahl, Agricultural Ethics - An Invitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48935-9_2

7

8

2  From Weed Control to Ethics

experiment. Neither I, Professor Fertig, nor the farmer asked any questions similar to those raised by Rachel Carson in 1962.1 Sometime later that summer, Professor Fertig visited and offered me an opportunity to return to Cornell and study for a Master of Science degree in his program. I was surprised and pleased. I thanked him and said no. I thought I did not need more education. I was wrong. In early 1963, Dr. Fertig visited again and offered me a job in the Cornell Department of Agronomy to do the weed control research as part of a major grant from the US Department of Agriculture to study the feasibility of growing sugar beets in central New  York State. The salary was $7300/year, more than I had ever made. The sugar beet project included plant pathologists, agronomists, soil fertility specialists, entomologists, weed scientists, sociologists, and economists. The project was a success in the sense that it established, without question, that sugar beets could be grown successfully in central New York State. But the farmers were happy with what they were doing and did not want to risk the uncertainty and cost of new equipment for a new crop. I learned that even with the involvement of a number of competent agricultural scientists, the project failed because in spite of the fact that the research provided adequate evidence that sugar beets could be grown and would be profitable, the farmers decided not to grow them. The preponderance of evidence convinced the agricultural scientists that their project had been successful. It was logical to assume the farmers would agree and begin to grow sugar beets. That didn’t happen. Economic considerations were important, but failure to consider what the farmers would actually do determined what happened. The project scientists focused on the agronomic question “Could it be done?” and the economic question “Would it be profitable?” These were important questions, but they ignored the more important question: Will farmers grow sugar beets? It was a social/psychological question that unfortunately was not asked. Only later did I become aware that in the agricultural realm, questions of what can be done are important. But questions of what farmers will do and exploration of the reasons for their choices must be asked and answered. As my education continued, I became more aware of the essentiality of the knowledge of those engaged in the social sciences—the liberal arts. I realized several years later that there was and there remains an important difference between what scientists learn can be done, what ought to be done, and what people decide to do. The sugar beet project convinced me that agricultural research was interesting and encouraged me to apply to pursue a Master’s degree at Cornell University with Stan Fertig in the Department of Agronomy beginning in the spring (February) semester of 1964. After completing the Master’s degree at Cornell in 1966 and a doctorate at Oregon State University in 1968, I arrived in Fort Collins, Colorado, to begin a new life as an Assistant Professor of Botany and Plant Pathology at Colorado

1  My Journey

9

State University.1 The job required teaching a class—the Biology and Control of Weeds—and doing research on soil persistence of herbicides and weed control in agronomic crops. It was the long desired opportunity, and I was confident that I was ready to take full advantage of it. In the beginning, my university career, my life, and my work resembled a mobile my wife gave me some years ago. It hangs in my study and consists of a black paper circle and three porpoises made from red construction paper, each with a sharply contrasting black eye. Each porpoise hangs from a string at the end of a slim metal wire, and they move alone or in unison, with frail elegance, grace, and beauty. I walked into my study one morning expecting to admire the mobile and it was gone. The supporting stick, fastened so carefully, had come loose, and the mobile had fallen to the floor. The frail elegance was no more. As I reflect on my weed science career, its direction, and on what I thought and knew as fact when I began, I know my career has resembled my mobile. In 1968, and for some years after, my family and professional lives were fascinating, and everything moved forward in order and harmony. I knew North Korea captured the USS Pueblo on January 23, the Vietnam TET offensive began on January 30, Martin Luther King was assassinated on April 4, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated on June 5, Tommie Smith and Juan Carlos raised their fists during the National Anthem at the Summer Olympics on October 16, Apollo 8 was the first manned spacecraft to orbit the moon on December 24. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon on July 20, 1969. Old Main, the oldest building on the Colorado State University campus, was destroyed by an arsonist on May 8, 1970. But these events, while memorable and very important, didn’t significantly affect me, my family, or my new career. Then the stories and facts about the use of the herbicide 2,4,5-T during the Vietnam war intervened. My career’s supports began to loosen. I began to doubt if what I knew to be the foundational facts and the supporting myths of my science were adequate. It was, in a very real way, a crisis of faith—a crisis of faith in science. In 1964, a study initiated by the National Cancer Institute suggested concern about the public safety of 2,4,5-T, an important herbicide for control of woody brush on rangeland and for weed control in forests. By 1950, 4.5 million kilograms (9.9 million pounds) of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T were being applied annually in the United States.2 A National Cancer Institute study revealed the possibility that 2,4,5-T or one of its formulation’s constituents might be a teratogen. Other allegations appeared over the next several years, many because the n-butyl ester of 2,4,5-T was half of Agent Orange, a defoliant used in Vietnam. By 1970, there was enough toxicological evidence to halt the military use of 2,4,5-T and for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to initiate administrative proceedings to suspend its registration for use in the United States. Throughout the 1970s, increasing attention was given to the dioxin contaminant in 2,4,5-T. Extensive studies confirmed that a

1  Some of the next few pages are an edited version of a portion of the preface of Zimdahl, R. L. 2012. Agriculture’s Ethical Horizon.

10

2  From Weed Control to Ethics

dioxin3 was the teratogen in 2,4,5-T. The manufacturers and EPA attempted to negotiate settlements to keep some uses, but discussions broke down, and the EPA cancelled all US uses in 1985. In 1971, I presented a paper, Human Experiments in Teratogenicity, in the ecology section of the Weed Science Society of America meeting in Dallas, Texas. The philosophical supports of my elegant, ordered, satisfying professional life crumbled after that paper. The major objective of the paper was to question the role weed scientists played and ought to play in an increasingly polluted world. I was troubled and asked my colleagues to help me think about under what conditions it is possible to say that any pesticide is so necessary to our food production system that any risk of human harm is acceptable. The paper suggested pesticides were means to the desirable end of food production. I proposed that those who work with pesticides must ask and answer questions about whether the means and ends are compatible. The paper argued that members of a society must feel they are participants in determining the way things are ordered. They must think they have and actually have the power to choose. To make the sense of choosing and participation real, people must have the evidence required to judge possible alternatives. People must also have, beyond the evidence, a sense of general purpose that serves as a context into which particular judgments are fitted. Six senior colleagues met me as I left the room and told me how wrong I was. The essence of the unpleasant encounter was that they wanted me to think about why I was so eager to bite the hand that fed me and much of the rest of the world. Their comments assured me that something was wrong, but it was something wrong with me not with 2,4,5-T or any other herbicides. The view of my senior colleagues was that the most important problem for agriculture and weed science was the obligation to increase production using appropriate technology to feed the growing world population. They believed that weed scientists should continue the scientifically responsible pursuit of wise use of federally (EPA) approved herbicides. I knew something was wrong but wasn’t able to define it well, and I was beginning to doubt that the unquestioned development of herbicides for agriculture was a priori good. In spite of the fact that I had requested guidance and discussion from my colleagues, other than the unpleasant encounter, no additional comments were ever received. A 1972 paper4 elaborated the oral presentation and continued my quest to decide what I thought and see if anyone cared. I read Silent Spring; many of the responses it elicited; several of Wendell Berry’s books; Wes Jackson’s thoughts; Paul Thompson’s books; the short, but very helpful The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels; and articles in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Agriculture and Human Values, and American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. A second paper5 published later in the same journal included two fundamental propositions: 1. Some species are pests and are necessary to control their population to produce food. 2. Pesticides are the primary means to control pests, but there may be an unnecessary dependence on them.

2  My Quest

11

The paper argued that special knowledge and the highly trained mind produce their own limitations. They tend to breed an inability to accept views from outside the discipline usually owing to a deep preoccupation with the discipline’s conclusions. It was evidence of the existence of Merton’s6 herd mentality mentioned in Chap. 1.

2  My Quest After doing weed science research and teaching for 20 years and publishing Weed Science – A Plea for Thought,7 I was compelled to reflect on what I had learned and plan my future. That led to study and thought about the values and ethics of agriculture and particularly of weed science. It required learning how to do things I didn’t know how to do. Exploring the ethical foundation of a science that had been my professional life was what I wanted to do, but what I wanted to do was not what my job description required. I was a Weed Scientist with two major areas of research: study of the kinetics of herbicide degradation in soil and weed control in agronomic crops. But after the 1971 encounter in Dallas, I began to think about things that were different than what I was supposed to be thinking about. My research on kinetics and control was good and progressing well. I was troubled because I did not know and had not thought to ask how I decided what to do or how I knew what I decided to do was the right thing to do. Other publications followed those mentioned above.8 The papers led to the 2006 publication of Agriculture’s Ethical Horizon, followed by the second edition in 2012. The 1991 essay was revised and published by Springer in 2012 – Weed Science: A Plea For Thought – Revisited.9 Its purpose was to clarify my thoughts about the direction and motivation of my science. Among my concerns was the method of questioning—the epistemology of agriculture’s practitioners. I have tried to encourage critical thinking about all parts of agriculture and agricultural science because I thought when we understood the parts we could understand the dynamics of the whole system. I fear that many thought I was only criticizing rather than thinking critically and I know some believe I have become a traitor to my discipline. The most disappointing thing about my quest and writing is the lack of response from my weed science colleagues. Such decisions and changes, especially radical changes, don’t come without costs. The costs have been personal and financial. My career and experience reinforced my view that solving weed problems is a very important task, but it was not the one I wanted to spend the rest of my career working on. The personal cost included loss of colleagues and friends who didn’t understand my quest and assumed the worst. In the minds of many, I was undermining my colleagues and denying the importance of their work. Learning how to discuss the history, values, and ethics of agriculture and weed science has continued to be a difficult challenge. Freeman Dyson (1988, p. 6)10 reflected on physics, his discipline. He said it was “passing through a phase of exuberant freedom, a phase of passionate prodigality.” Weed scientists have always been exuberant and prodigious in their scope of work

12

2  From Weed Control to Ethics

and ambition for the future. During weed science meetings, others, especially the young, revel in the progress of weed science. Dyson’s view of his young colleagues was identical to mine: “They are at home… and walk confidently along trails which to me are almost invisible.” They are discussing ideas I don’t even have the vocabulary to discuss. They are not wandering aimlessly. “They are explorers, mapping out the ground, finding the ways that will lead them out of the jungle up to the mountain peaks.” My young colleagues are leading the way to a new weed science with new terminology (genetic modification, genomics, CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats), multiple resistance, transcriptomics, germplasm) and new ways of weed management. However, my experience suggests that these capable explorers lack an understanding of the ethical foundation of agriculture and of weed science and what it ought to be. Indeed, in my opinion, they are not interested in exploring the ethical foundation of their science. They are fully cognizant of the positive effects of agricultural science on agricultural production and the fact that the world now feeds more people an adequate diet than ever before. However, they are unaware of and I suspect could not quickly articulate the core hypotheses of weed science or the ethical foundation on which it rests.

3  The Big Questions I am concerned by the direction of agricultural science, and I have sought guidance and developed confidence as I have explored the ways of ethics, a route I have learned, but one most of my colleagues have not trod. Predictions about the future of agricultural science by scientists say that is good, essential, and going to get better. When I was a student, the environment was acknowledged but not endangered. It was a resource to be developed and we were responsible for shaping it to achieve our ends. Weeds invaded crops but they were not invasive species, a new and growing area of study. Genetic modification of species was unknown. All of these are now powerful ideas with powerful constituencies that are changing agricultural practice and its foundational ideas. Hopes will be dashed, and new elites and new ideas will consolidate power and privilege and frustrate others.11 Dreams of more equitable and just society may be at risk. It is wise to remember, as we change, that agriculture and the technology of its sub-disciplines can affect and be affected by the development, direction, and desired future of the greater society. The central norm, the primary moral stance, of agronomy, crop and soil science, entomology, plant pathology, weed science, and indeed agricultural science is that the scientific research should benefit humanity by aiding/increasing the production of food and fiber. Agriculture and its technological disciplines are primary moving forces behind many social changes. The agricultural enterprise is committed to promoting the societal benefits and future success of the present, very productive, chemical, capital, and energy-intensive system, which is, in the minds of many, not sustainable. The foundational justification of those committed to modern agricultural practice

3  The Big Questions

13

rests on the pragmatic claim that the system is successful and the moral claim that it has and will continue to feed the world’s population. Agriculture, the essential human activity, is human’s most widespread interaction with the environment. It is possible and highly probable that present research will synthetically produce the calorie and protein needs of animals and humans.12,13 However, it is reasonable to posit that for the foreseeable future, no one will live in a post-agricultural society. To assure agriculture’s sustainability and continued productive capability, the agricultural community must recognize, debate, and discuss the moral dilemmas it has created. Continuing to justify all of agriculture’s activities and technology by the necessity of achieving the moral obligation and the production challenge of feeding, what most agree will be, a growing population (see endnote 11) has not been and will not be a sufficient defense for agriculture’s environmental interactions. One must ask, indeed, if our global society, is at risk if agriculture continues to ignore its ethical dilemmas and its moral obligation to do no harm. My agricultural colleagues have strong personal ethical standards: they care for their family, respect others, are responsible for their actions, and do their jobs well. They also have strong professional standards: they don’t manipulate data and plagiarize, give credit to others, and report conflicts of interest. They know how to distinguish right and wrong and strive to do what is right. However, it has been my experience that they do not extend ethical concern to what one might call the big agricultural questions. For example: 1. Should all possible technology be adopted to increase production to feed more people regardless of the environmental or human harm the technology may cause? 2. Should animals be raised in confinement if it is harmful to them but makes meat cheaper for consumers? 3. Should water be mined from deep aquifers to maintain present irrigated farms in dryland areas even though the production system is not sustainable? 4. Should nitrogen fertilizer use in the Mississippi basin be decreased to reduce the effects on fishing and ecological stability in the Gulf of Mexico? 5. Should family farms be protected and preserved or allowed to die because they are economically inefficient; that is, they can’t make sufficient profit? 6. Should more or less food aid be given to developing countries? 7. Should all aspects of agricultural biotechnology be accepted without public debate? 8. Should pesticide use in American agriculture be reduced? 9. Must pesticide pollution of soil water and food be accepted as a cost of feeding the world? 10. Is cruelty to and exploitation of migrant labor an inevitable cost of modern agriculture? These are some of the big questions that give rise to agriculture’s ethical dilemmas. I urge and invite my colleagues to discuss and debate these and other big questions as new agricultural technology is developed. In addition to feeding a growing

14

2  From Weed Control to Ethics

population, those who practice agriculture should practice good stewardship of the land, care for the environment, reduce the risk of agricultural activity, and seek common cause with those who object to agricultural practice. Those who practice and support agriculture should begin to ask if the prevailing moral justification of feeding the world is adequate given all the issues—the big questions—modern, developed country agriculture faces? Most of those engaged in agriculture in the world’s developed countries have a definite, unexamined moral confidence, a certainty, about the correctness of what they do. All of those involved in agriculture (farmers, ranchers, researchers, professors, technology developers and suppliers, and the general public) should discuss the origin and validity of that confidence. Does the fact that the United States and the world’s other developed countries produce a great abundance of food justify everything that agriculture does? Should those engaged in agriculture continue to ignore or easily dismiss the concerns of the majority of the general public about the issues that modern developed country agriculture has created? It is time to listen, begin to understand, care about, and respond to the public’s concerns. The understandable agricultural view is that the modern farmer is environmentally concerned but must operate within the narrowing profit margin of modern agriculture, which may affect environmental and ethical concern.14 All of agricultural practitioners and a majority of the general public regard feeding a growing population as good. What I have learned in a new language, albeit slowly, is how to think about and try to engage students and colleagues in thought about what constitutes an appropriate ethical basis for making judgments about agriculture’s progress and the inevitable value differences that arise. Among my agricultural colleagues, concerns about moral questions (Who pays and who should pay the price of progress?) are often relegated to the realm of private anxiety, as if it would be awkward or embarrassing to make it public.15 I believe we must take the risk of appearing awkward and being embarrassed as we discuss: • What are the goals of agricultural science? • What should be the goals of agricultural science? • How do and how should the practitioners of agriculture address complex ethical questions? • How do you decide what to do? • How do you know that what you decide to do the right thing to do? It is important to recognize that the persistence of moral conflict, of value questions, is an inevitable, important part of the human condition. Engaging in the debate to resolve the questions requires our intellect and humanity. Such discussions normally occur in a time of political and cultural imponderables—our time. Calm discussion and rational thought may be impeded by irrational anger. Such discussions are akin to holding a small light in a storm to see if there are any paths ahead where people who share goals can walk together and think about and plan their future (see Dyson endnote 10). A fear as well as perhaps a fact is that if agricultural scientists do not venture forth to understand and shape the ethical base of the future, it will

4  The University

15

just happen or be imposed by others. The perpetuation and improvement of agriculture has been and remains my goal. Never will it teach us all we need to know. Never will it provide us with final answers, and since none exist, then science’s weakness becomes science’s strength. Never will it cease its controversies, and that too is just as well if truth, like infinity, is to be eternally sought, though never captured. So it is that I must prefer the informed to the convinced, the demonstrated to the revealed, the observed to the imagined the probable to the impossible, the unalterable fact to the evanescent wish, the reasoned conclusion—however offensive—to the unquestioned assumption—however pleasing.16

Ardrey’s is a plea for reasoned conclusions. It is reason—the ability to think, form judgments, and draw conclusions coherently and logically—that guides one in the ethical realm. It is reason, which is not equivalent to scientific facts or evanescent wishes about the way things ought to be, that will be the most reliable guide to the future.

4  The University In this day when my university emphasizes that the ability to attract external support will be a major factor in hiring and promotion decisions for new faculty, the role of reason, central to ethics, seems to be losing its primacy. The role of higher education institutions now seems to be shaped almost exclusively by the wants of students seeking educational credentials and businesses and government agencies seeking research outcomes.17 Caplan18 argues persuasively that college students learn little and most forget what they learn with shocking speed. He asks why we are pushing ever more people into higher education and accuses students of being Philistines who by definition are hostile to or indifferent to culture and aesthetic refinement and, in his view, are commonplace in ideas and tastes. I see some evidence to support Caplan’s accusations in colleges of agriculture where the focus is on learning to do, not on thinking about the reasons and justification for what is or can be done. A college education “is not a commodity. It’s a challenging engagement in which both parties have to take an active, risk-taking role if its potential value is to be realized.” “To create what is, for most of us, that “new sensation,” you need a professor who provokes and a student who stops slumbering. It is the responsibility of colleges and universities to place students in environments that provide these opportunities. It is the responsibility of students to seize them. Genuine education is not a commodity, it is the awakening of a human being”19 to the realization that education is a public good not just a private benefit. Yankelovich20 identified several trends to which colleges and universities must respond if they are to fulfill their stated educational goals and retain their leadership in science and technology. There is an increasing need to understand other cultures and languages. Awareness of cultural diversity will lead to understanding and perhaps to challenging the Western, particularly American, belief in the universal relevance of Western culture.21 This belief holds that all societies want to adopt Western

16

2  From Weed Control to Ethics

values, institutions, and practices. If they seem not to have the desire and are committed to their own traditional cultures, they are, in the view of many, victims of a false consciousness. Normatively, the Western belief posits that people throughout the world should embrace Western values and culture because they embody the highest, most enlightened, liberal, rational, modern, and civilized thinking of humankind. Huntington proposes that the belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: “it is false, it is immoral, and it is dangerous” to societal and agricultural progress. Higher education has grown more scientific in its quest for knowledge, while the American public has grown “more religious, more fretful about moral truth, and more polarized in its struggle to find political and existential truth” (see endnote 15). Some searches for truth will not yield to scientific inquiry. They must be pursued through dialogue where issues are discussed from a variety of points of view. The educational benefit is the discussion, not the arrival at a single factual conclusion. Press and Washburn22 argue that commercially sponsored research is putting at risk the paramount value of higher education—disinterested inquiry. “Colleges and universities in the face of declining government support for education have become eager co-educationalists, embracing market values as never before.” Large amounts of private capital flow into the academic-industrial complex. Universities have surrendered to the norms of business and have become competitors in the hunt for endowments and students.23 It is disturbing that universities are looking and behaving like for-profit companies. That is not something that’s happening in this century. Upton Sinclair24 indicted the titans of industry (Stanford, Rockefeller, Cornell), who, in his view, supplied the capital that transformed the college into the research university. Earlier, Veblen25 argued that business enterprise had taken over higher education. Bigness and organization dominate. Higher education is justified as useful for attaining other ends such as financial success. We do not ask—is it good for man? The best reason for supporting Colleges and Universities lies not in the services they can perform, vital though such services may be but in the values they represent. The ultimate criterion of the place of higher learning in America will be the extent to which it is esteemed not as a necessary instrument of external ends, but as an end in itself.26

Orr27 (p. 156) claims that the purpose of education is not to foster wonder or gratitude or ecological competence but rather to equip young people for jobs and careers in an economy designed to expand without limits. One should remember Kenneth Boulding’s28 comment that anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. Few ask if there can be a good life without economic growth. Economists seem to have borrowed their growth language from biology and turned it into a policy loaded with moral values which are not grounded in physical reality (Orr p. 170). Technology, including agricultural technology, may have made the Earth a more dangerous place to live. Once we cross some natural boundaries, there are things that can never be rebuilt.29

5  Two Cultures

17

The university prepare students for their role in extending human dominion over the natural world, not for the intimate presence to the natural world. Use of this power in the deleterious manner has devastated the planet.... So awesome is the devastation we are bringing about that we can only conclude that we are caught in a severe cultural disorientation, a disorientation that is sustained intellectually by the university, economically by the corporation, legally by the Constitution, and spiritually by religious institutions.30

“When market interests totally dominate colleges and universities, their role as public agencies significantly diminishes—as does their capacity to provide venues for the testing of new ideas and agendas for public action. We may be losing the understanding that as good and as powerful as our science is, knowledge has more than just instrumental value” (see endnote 15). What is lost is the ability to recognize that “what we should know, pretend that we know, and wish that we knew, we don’t”. Worse still, “we do not know, without risk of embarrassment, how to ask about what we need to know.”31 Ideas and values are important whether or not they have marketability or confer personal advantage. Universities are the traditional and best places to generate ideas and discuss values. They are now battling about the limits of free speech, but they remain the places where we begin to ask about what we need to know. Zakaria32 cites Norman Augustine (the former CEO of Lockheed Martin) “Who wants a technology-driven economy if those who drive it are not grounded in such fields as ethics?” The invitation of this book is to encourage all involved and all who are concerned about agriculture to recognize and continually explore how to ask and respond to the many ethical challenges agriculture faces.

5  Two Cultures C. P. Snow introduced the idea of the two cultures in his Rede Lecture at Cambridge in May 1959. His enduring idea was that the intellectual life of Western society is split into two cultures—the sciences and the humanities—and that divide has been a major hindrance to solving the world’s problems. His lecture was published as The Two Cultures and The Scientific Revolution by Cambridge University Press in 1959. It was revised and published as The Two Cultures: And a Second Look – An Expanded Version of The Two Cultures and The Scientific Revolution by Cambridge University Press in 1963. Snow’s examples were literary intellectuals and physicists as representatives of their respective cultures. Snow was concerned that there was widespread misunderstanding of each culture by the other and “their attitudes are so different that, even on the level of emotion, they can’t find much common ground.” An often repeated part of Snow’s essay is as follows: A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s? I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question  – such as, What do you mean by mass, or

18

2  From Weed Control to Ethics a­ cceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had.

Mumford33 used different terminology to characterize Snow’s two cultures. He claimed that the two technologies have recurrently existed side by side: one authoritarian, the other democratic. The first was system-centered, immensely powerful, but inherently unstable, while the second was man-centered, relatively weak, but resourceful and durable. In my view, Snow’s analysis and Mumford’s terminology describe the divide between the agricultural (system-centered, powerful, and unstable) and the humanities (man-centered, weak, etc.). Similar to Snow’s comparison, agricultural scientists will be similarly dismayed if they asked their humanities colleagues to tell them about growing and uses of corn and soybeans or the process and role of photosynthesis. Study of the humanities does not threaten agricultural science, but the more it advances, the more the humanities seem to be ignored and at risk. Agricultural scientists clearly see the significant advantages of new technology and too frequently overlook the unanticipated consequences, which, as experience has shown, add additional problems to existing ones.34 Barash concludes that scientific achievement makes humanistic wisdom more important. In the view of many, agriculture’s technological advances threaten the planet, indeed our survival, perhaps especially “…in a world of cloning, stem-cell possibilities, genetic engineering, robotics, cyber-human hybrids, xenotransplants,” CRISPR, and artificial intelligence. The risks and the challenges of rocket science have been replaced by genomic science and urge us to ask what it is to be human (Barash). We live in a time where plants, animals, and insects35 are being driven to extinction at a rate not seen since the dinosaurs went extinct (Moore).36 Ecosystems may fray or fall apart. Savage weather will drive people to starvation, violence, and flight. Scientists reluctantly agree that half of the wildlife and 60% of the plants in the world’s richest forests are at risk of extinction in the next century unless stronger measures to combat climate change are implemented.37,38 Climate change and widespread extinctions are and will continue to affect agriculture. In contrast to Snow’s view, Stephen Jay Gould’s The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister’s Pox provides a different perspective. Gould39 argues that Snow’s concept of two cultures is not only off the mark; it is a damaging and shortsighted viewpoint, and it has led to decades of unnecessary fence-building and poor or no conversation. He focuses on the commonalities between humanities and the sciences, such as creative thinking and the psychology of transcendence and discovery. Gould’s argument is, as always, clear and compelling. But after 60  years, Snow’s argument remains persuasive in the agricultural realm where the fences are intellectual not tangible and there is a lack of conversation.

6 Responsibility

19

6  Responsibility Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, which was serialized by The New Yorker magazine in June 1962, launched the modern environmental movement and led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency; the passage of the clean air, clean water, endangered species act’s; and the banning of several pesticides. Consistent with the agrochemical industries defensive posture, Dr. Robert White-Stevens, a Biochemist with American Cyanamid corporation said: “A suggestion that pesticides are in fact biocide’s – destroying all life is obviously absurd. If men were to faithfully follow the teachings of Ms. Carson, we would return to the dark ages and the insects and diseases and vermin would once again inherit the earth.”40 The New York Times ran an article with the headline, “‘Silent Spring’ Is Now Noisy Summer: Pesticide Industry Up In Arms Over a New Book.” It quoted the President of Montrose Chemical Corporation, who said Ms. Carson wrote not “as a scientist but rather as a fanatic defender of the cult of the balance of nature.”41 Within the agricultural community, she was widely denounced as being too emotional, nonscientific, and lacked an understanding of the essentiality of agricultural technology. She saw that the balance of nature was a major force in human survival, whereas the critics believed that man had a responsibility to steadily control nature. As exemplified by White-Stevens, the agrochemical industry believed that their hopes and their technology would somehow make us all exempt from the workings of the natural world. Clearly, Rachel Carson won the argument. Most, but not all, people are aghast at the present actions to eliminate or diminish the government agencies Carson’s work created. She asked us and the governmental agencies to think about what use of pesticides is justified when there is potential danger to humans and the natural world. Many think the enormity of the world’s crisis is not just sad, but tragic. Entire ecosystems (a term coined by the English botanist Arthur Tansley in 1935) may be at risk. If climate change drives people to starvation, violence, and flight, it will be unbearably sad and politically disruptive. Moore (endnote 37) says it becomes tragic when these events are “consequences of human decisions rooted in what we know as virtues: industry, hard work, supreme cleverness, magnificent technological genius, competitive nature, powerful oratory, and loyalty to one’s own.” More than in the past, we must acknowledge our responsibility for what is happening to our Earth.42

Notes 1. Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, New York, 367 pp. 2. Wildavsky, A. 1995. But is it true? A citizen’s guide to environmental health and safety Issues. Harvard University press, Cambridge, MA. 574 pp.

20

2  From Weed Control to Ethics

3. The dominant teratogenic molecule in 2,4,5-T was 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo p-dioxin (TCDD). 4. Zimdahl, R.L. 1972. Pesticides – A Value Question. Bull. Entomological Soc. of America. Pp. 109–110. 1972. 5. Zimdahl, R.  L. 1978. The Pesticide Paradigm. Bull. Entomological Soc. Of America. 24:357–360. 6. Merton, T. 1996. Letter to an Innocent Bystander, p.53–62 of Raids on The Unspeakable. New Directions Publishing Corporation. New York. 182 pp. The specific quote is “The collective arrogance and despair of his own herd.” 7. Zimdahl, R.L. 1991. Weed Science – A Plea For Thought. Coop. State Research Service of USDA. 34 pp. 8. Zimdahl, R.  L. 1994. Who Are You And Where Are You Going? Weed Technology. 8:388–39. Zimdahl, R. L. 1998 – Ethics in Weed Science. Weed Science. 46:636–639. Zimdahl, R.  L. 1998  – The Price of Moral Ambiguity. PLITS (Plant Protection Information Tropics and Subtropics). Univ. of Hohenheim, Germany. 16(2):231–236. Zimdahl, R. L. 1998 – Rethinking Agricultural Research Roles. Agriculture and Human Values. 15;77–84. Zimdahl, R. L. 1999 – The Ethics of Agriculture and Weed Science. 17th Asian-Pacific Weed Sci. Soc. Conf. Bangkok. Pp 3–8, Vol 1. Zimdahl, R.  L. 1999  – Teaching Agricultural Ethics. J.  Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 13:229–247. Zimdahl, R. L. 2001 – Agriculture’s Mission: Finding A Partner. American. J. Alternative Agriculture. 16:35–46. Zimdahl, R.  L. 2002  – Moral Confidence In Agriculture. American J. Alternative Agriculture. 17:144–15. Zimdahl, R. L. 2002 – The President Said. Weed Science. 50:14–25. Zimdahl, R. L. 2003 – The Mission of Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture. American J. Alternative Agric. 18:103–115. 9. Zimdahl, R. L. 2012. Weed Science – A Plea for Thought – Revisited. Springer Briefs in Agriculture. 73 pp. 10. Dyson, F. 1988. Infinite in All Directions. Harper & Row Publishers, New York. 321 pp., p. 6. 11. Mann, C.C. 2018. How will we feed the new global middle class? The Atlantic. March p. 52–61. 12. Friend, T. Value meal-impossible foods wants to save the world by inventing a better burger. The New Yorker. September 30. P 42–55. Bunge, J. 2019. Beyond meat post profits as rivals grow. New York Times. Martin, R.P. 2008. Putting meat on the table: Industrial farm animal production in America. The PEW Charitable Trusts. April. 4 pp. http://pewtrusts.org/ en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/putting-meat-on-the-table. Accessed December 2019. 13. Ducharme, J. 2019. The rise of healthier proteins. TIME. January 28, Pp 54–55.

6 Responsibility

21

Sengupta, S. 2019. New diet guidelines to benefit people and the planet: More greens for all, less meat for some. The New York Times. https://nytimes. com/2019/01/16/climate/meat-environment-climate-change.html. 3  pp. Accessed January 21. Samuels, A. 2020. Feeding a Changing World. TIME. February 3. Pp 67–71. 14. James, H.S. and M.K.  Hendrikson. 2008. Perceived economic pressures and farmer ethics. Agricultural Economics. 38:349–361. 15. Bellah, R.N., R. Madsen, W.M. Sullivan, A. Swidler, and S.M. Tipton. 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism And Commitment in American Life. Harper and Row Publishers, New York. P. vi. 16. Ardrey, R. 1976. The Hunting Hypothesis: A Personal Conclusion Concerning the Evolutionary Nature of Man. Bantam Books. New York. P. 71. 17. Zemsky, R. 2003. Have we lost the ‘public’ in higher education? The Chronicle Of Higher Education. May 30, Pp B7–B9. 18. Caplan, B. 2018. What’s college good for? The Atlantic. January February. Pp11–14, 21. 19. Rawlings, H. 2015. College is not a commodity. Stop treating it like one. Post Everything. Washington Post, June 9. https://WashingtonPost.com/ Posteverything/WP/2015/06/09/college-is-not-a-commodity-stop-treating-itlike-one/?utmterm=15160a3a0a09. Accessed August 2019. 20. Yankelovich, D. 2005. Ferment and change: higher education 2015. The Chronicle of Higher Education. November 25. PP. B 6–9. 21. Huntington, S.P. 1996. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Touchstone publications, New York. 367 pp. See p. 310. 22. Press, E. and J. Washburn. 2000. The Kept University. The Atlantic Monthly. March pp. 39–54. 23. Carey, J. W. The engaged discipline. The Carroll C. Arnold distinguished lecture of the National communication Association. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. 16 pp. 24. Sinclair, U. 1922. The Goose Step: Study of American education. AMS press. New York. 488 pp. 25. Veblen, T. 1918. The higher learning in America – A memorandum on the conduct of universities by businessmen. The Viking press: New York. 286 pp. 26. Hofstadter, R. and C.D.  Hardy. 1952. The development and scope of higher education in the United States. Columbia University press, New York. 254 pp. P. 133–134. 27. Orr, D. W. 2016. Dangerous Years: Climate Change, the Long Emergency, and the Way Forward. Yale University press, New Haven, CN. 300 pp. 28. Boulding, K.  E. 1966. The economics of the coming spaceship Earth. Pp. 3–14 in Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy: essays from the sixth Resources for the Future Forum. H.  Jarrett (Ed.). Johns Hopkins University press. Baltimore, M.D. 29. Friedman, T.L. 2016. Thank You for Being Late – An optimist’s guide to thriving in the age of accelerations. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. New York. 486 pp. See P. 183.

22

2  From Weed Control to Ethics

30. Berry, T. 1999. The Great Work – Our way into the future. Bell Tower, New York. 241 pp. See p. 73. 31. Gomes, P.J. 1996. The Good Book: reading the Bible with mind and heart. Morrow & Co. 383 pp. 32. Zakaria, F. 2015. In Defense of a Liberal Education. W.W. Norton and Company. New York. 204 pp. 33. Mumford, L. 1964. Authoritarian and Democratic Technics. Technology and Culture 5(1):1–8. 34. Barash, D.P. 2005. C.P. Snow: bridging the two-cultures divide. The Chronicle of Higher Education. November 25. P. B10. 35. Anonymous. 2019. Plague without insects. The Economist March 23. P. 12. 36. Moore, K.D. 2017. One Good Turn  – What are virtues anytime of runaway global warming? What are crimes? Orion. 35th anniversary issue. Pp 15–20. 37. Thomas, C.D., A.  Cameron, R.  E. Green, M.  Bakkenes, L.J.  Beaumont, Y.  C. Collingham et  al. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature. 427:145. 38. Meixler, E. 2018. Half of all wildlife could disappear from the Amazon, Galapagos and Madagascar are due to climate change. TIME, March 24. 39. Gould, Stephen Jay. 2003. The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister’s Pox: Mending the gap between science and the humanities. Harmony books. Nevada City. CA. 274 pp. 40. White-Stevens, Robert. 1963. Robert White-Stephens-Silent Spring: Sparking an Environmental Revolution. http://66938144.weebly.com.robert-white-stevens.html. 41. Orlando, L. 2002. Industry attacks on dissent: from Rachel Carson to Oprah. Dollars and Sense: the Magazine of Economic Justice. March/April. See http:// www.dollarsandsense.org. 42. Winner, L. 1986. The Whale and The Reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. The University of Chicago press, Chicago, IL. 200 pp.

Chapter 3

Agriculture: A Brief History

1  A Brief Story of Agriculture There is no doubt that agricultural research and the application of new technology have increased food production in much of the world. Scientists have been able to combine science, technology, and their knowledge to create agriculture’s productive success. Progress in soil erosion control, nutrient use efficiency, and integrated pest management has been remarkable. However, the success of industrial farming bears some responsibility for the polluted environment it has contributed to that it uses for production and profit and which may be hazardous to agriculture’s future success. This chapter is a brief story of agriculture and a commentary on how it began and has progressed. It is not a prescription for the future. The only thing that can be predicted about the future is that it is going to be radically different than the past, but being aware of past successes and failures will provide guidance for the future.

1.1  The Blood, Sweat, and Tears Era Agriculture can be described as having three eras. The first is commonly and correctly characterized as the blood, sweat, and tears era. Famine and fatigue were common and inadequate food supply was frequent. Most people were farmers and most farms were small, subsistence, family operations. Life for most people was described by the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679):1 Wherein men live without other security, than their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them…In such conditions there is…no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters, no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. L. Zimdahl, Agricultural Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48935-9_3

23

24

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

According to the World Bank,1 Hobbes dismal view still describes the lives of more than half of our fellow human beings who live on less than $5.50/day and struggle to meet basic human needs. The poverty line for the World Bank’s lower middle-­ income countries is $3.20/day for 1.9 billion people—about 25% of the world’s population. As many as 80% of the world’s people live on less than US$10/day.2 On any given night, there are 550,000 homeless people in the United States, and 38 million Americans live below the US poverty line of $12,490/year. It is difficult for us who can regularly pay $3 to $5 for morning coffee to realize that more than 800 million of the world’s people still do not have enough to eat. Tom Friedman,3 The NY Times Foreign Affairs Columnist, reported his conversation with Monique Barbut, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention, to combat desertification. In 2016, there were 500 million farms in the world each with less than 3 hectares. They provide the living for 2.5 billion people, roughly 1/3 of the people with whom we share the Earth. Friedman noted that if those people are wiped out by climate change and desertification that is happening all over West Africa and the Sahel, there will be a major worldwide crisis. Some progress has occurred. The February 5, 2018, issue of Time magazine reported that in 1981, 44% of the world’s people lived in extreme poverty.4 In 2019, Time reported (February 4–11) that in 1990, 36% of the world’s people lived in extreme poverty (1.8 billion on less than US$1.90/day), but in 2015, only 10% did (735 million). The article projected that only 6% would in 2030.5 The World Bank estimates there will be 8.6 billion people in 2030 and 6% (approximately 500 million) will still live in extreme poverty. While poverty rates have declined in all regions, progress has been uneven. More than half of the extreme poor live in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2015, 736 million people (10% of the world’s population) lived on less than US$1.90 a day more than all the other regions combined. That is down from 1.85 billion in 1990.6 If the trend continues, by 2030, nearly 9 out of 10 extreme poor will be in sub-Saharan Africa. The majority of the global poor live in rural areas, are poorly educated, work in agriculture, and are less than 18 years old. The World Bank’s view is that the work to end extreme poverty of those who still endure agriculture’s blood, sweat, and tears era is far from over. Clearly, a business-­ as-­usual path will not eradicate extreme poverty by 2030. Improving agriculture must be accomplished, but it is not the only solution. It is becoming increasingly difficult to reach those remaining in extreme poverty who live in remote areas of fragile countries, where access to schools, health care, electricity, safe water, and other critical services remains elusive. Moreover, for those who have been able to move out of poverty, progress is often temporary: economic shocks, food insecurity, and climate change threaten to rob them of hard-won gains and force them back into poverty.7 In spite of agriculture’s undeniable productive success, too many of the world’s people still live in the blood, sweat, and tears era of agriculture.

 World Bank press release October17, 2018.

1

1  A Brief Story of Agriculture

25

1.2  The Mechanical Era The mechanical era, agriculture’s second developmental stage, began with the invention of labor-saving machines. Jethro Tull8 published The New Horse Hoeing Husbandry in 1731. He advocated tillage and cultivation as substitutes for crop rotation, fertilizer, and fallow.9 Plant nutrition was derived from what Tull called infinitely divisible particles of Earth. Tillage made the particles small and thereby plants were nourished. Tull’s hypothesis was false in all respects, but he deserves credit for promoting the new practice of cultivation. Tull’s ideas included invention of the seed drill in 1701. The first practical grain drill was not patented until 1841. The scythe and the cradle were introduced in the early 1790s. In 1793, Eli Whitney invented the first workable cotton gin. Andrew Meikle’s invention of a threshing machine in 1780 preceded Cyrus McCormick’s reaper/binder in 1834, which he began to manufacture in 1840. Thomas Jefferson’s moldboard plow of least resistance was tested in 1794. Charles Newbold patented the first cast-iron plow in 1797, and John Deere perfected the steel moldboard plow in 1837. These were among the inventions that enabled the mechanical era of agriculture. Between 1860 and 1875, the source of agriculture power changed from humans (manpower) to horses. In 1874, the first barbed wire permitted fencing of rangeland and led to the end of open-range grazing. These inventions and the steam engine in the mid-1800s, the combine harvester thresher in the 1920s, and gasoline tractors and rubber tires were the beginning of dramatic, continuing changes in US agriculture. The effect of agricultural mechanization is illustrated by the changes in farm population that began in the nineteenth century. In 1830, four farmers in the United States supported five non-farmers. In 1910, a farmer fed himself (nearly all were men) and six others. With the advantages of improving, available, and inexpensive machines, farming became more efficient, and the need for labor was reduced. By 1940, 1 farmer supported 10.7 non-farmers. By 1960, near the end of the mechanical era, 1 farmer supported 26 non-farmers. The mechanical era of agriculture was not simply a series of inventions that affected only agriculture. Smil10 noted that the period “between 1867 and 1914, equal to less than 1% of the history of high (settled) civilizations, was distinguished by the most extraordinary concatenation of a large number of fundamental scientific and technical advances.” He (p.13) identified the 1880s as “the most inventive decade in history.” Many of the inventions directly affected the practice of agriculture, and nearly all affected life on the farm. The 1880s included reliable and affordable electric lights, electric generating plants, electric motors, transformers, practical gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines, automobiles, and air-filled rubber tires. The decade of the 1890s saw the invention of diesel engines, and between 1900 and 1914, humans saw mass-produced cars, tractors, radio broadcasts, photography, aluminum production, movies, the first wireless signals, vacuum tubes, tungsten light bulbs, neon lights, and several other things that made rural life easier and more pleasant. The most significant invention for agriculture and the growth of human population was the Haber-Bosch process for the synthesis of ammonia,

26

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

which made the production of nitrogen fertilizer possible. Nitrogen and total fertilizer use expanded steadily from 1850 to 19,800 (Table 3.1) and then declined as more efficient application techniques were developed. US Environmental Protection Agency data11 for 2003 through 2011 show that nitrogen fertilizer use increased an average of 13% in 21 states and decreased an average of 9.5% in 38 states. Twelve states increased use of phosphorus fertilizer an average of 11%, and 37 states decreased use an average of 20%. These data seem to support the claim that fertilizer rates have declined in many US states. Due to the growing population, economic development, and consumer demand for food, it is reasonable to expect US and world fertilizer demand for nitrogen fertilizer will continue to grow. Each of these inventions improved rural life, but in a real sense, they were preludes to the chemical era of agriculture. Table 3.1  Nitrogen fertilizer use (1850–1940) and total (N, P, K) fertilizer use in the United States (1940–2025)a,b,c Million tons Year 1850 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015

Nitrogen 0.2 4.0 7.0 63 151 317 371 1087.9 2738 7489 10,714 11,076 12,334 12,233 13,307

Million tons Year 1935 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Proj. 2025

Total 1216 1766 4058 7464 16,068 23,083 20,624 21,619 20,854 21,032

For 1850–1951. Mehring, A.  L., Adams, J.  R., and Jacob, K.  D.: Statistics on Fertilizers and Liming Materials in the United States, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Statistical Bulletin No. 191, Washington, D.C., USA, 1957 For 1952–1959. USDA (US Department of Agriculture): Consumption of Commercial Fertilizers, Primary Plant Nutrients, and Micronutrients, 1850–1969, USDA-Statistical Reporting Service, Crop Reporting Board, Statistical Bulletin No. 472, Washington, D.C., USA, 1971 For 1960–2015. USDA-ERS (US Department of Agriculture-Economic Research Service): Fertilizer Use and Price, available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/fertilizer-use-andprice.aspx (last access: 25 March 2020), 2019 b Cao, P., C. Lu, and Z. Yu. 2018. Historical Nitrogen Fertilizer Use in Agricultural Ecosystem of the Continental United States during 1850–2015: Application rate, Timing, and Fertilizer Types. Earth System Science Data .10:969–984. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-969-2018 c Yu, Z., and C.  Lu. 2017. Historical cropland expansion and abandonment in the continental U.S. during 1850 to 2015. Global Ecology and Biogeography DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ geb.12697 a

1  A Brief Story of Agriculture

27

1.3  The Chemical Era The chemical era of agriculture increased production, cost, and risk. It really began when nitrogen fertilizer (a result of the Haber-Bosch process) became readily available and enabled realization of the genetic potential of the newly available hybrid corn. In the early 1930s, a quarter of the American population lived on farms. When nitrogen fertilizer was combined with hybrid corn, which was first studied and promoted by Henry A. Wallace12 in 1913, yields went up rapidly. Wallace’s early work led to his founding Pioneer HI-Bred International in 1926. It became Pioneer Hi-Bred Corn Company, which was purchased by DuPont in 1999. Hybrid corn was popularized by Roswell Garst, an Iowa farmer. In 1933, corn sold for 10 cents a bushel, and a fraction of 1% of Iowa land was planted with hybrid seed. By 1943, 99.5% of Iowa corn was hybrid. In 1933, corn yield was 24.1 bushels/acre, about what it was during the Civil War. In 1943, it was 31, but by 1981, it had grown to 109 bushels/acre.13 Yield was 173 bu./A in 2005 and 189  in 2015; some growers have achieved 500 bu./A. In 1890, it took 35–40 h of human labor to produce 100 bushels of corn on 2½ acres. By 1930, 15–20 h were required. That dropped to 10–14 h by 1945 and it has continued to decline. The agricultural revolution of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s transformed the practice of agriculture, reduced the number of people on farms, and significantly increased the productivity of those who remained.14 At the same time, it made those who remained more dependent on governmental action, agricultural research scientists who developed new practices, and agricultural businesses that provided the resources and technology required to practice agriculture. Increasingly efficient agricultural machinery and the growth of fertilizer and synthetic organic chemicals in agriculture were major contributors to the decline in the number of US farms.15 There were 2.62 million farms in 1974, 2.13 in 2004, and 2.05 in 2017. There were 952 million acres in farms in 1974, 940 in 2004, 912 in 2015, and 910 in 2017. Average farm size increased to 444 acres.16 The 2014–2015 data show that 30 states lost farms, 48 increased farm land, 24 increased farm size, 24 had no change, and only 2 (CA and WI) slightly decreased farm size. But yields and food availability increased. US Census Data categorizes farms by sales class (Table 3.2). It is interesting to note that only farms with sales above $1 million and those with $100,000–500,000 in annual sales increased. Farms with sales greater than $500,000 per year were only 7.4% of all farms but captured 67% of all sales in the early part of the twenty-first century. Fifty-six percent of all farms had less than $10,000  in sales, which accounted for only 1% of production. Eighty percent of farms had less than $100,000. Farms with annual sales greater than $250,000 received 85% of government payments in 200717 but only 30% in 2015.18 In 2002, 90% of all US farms were family or individually owned, and they captured 53% of all sales and government payments. Corporate farms were only 2.9% of all farms but captured 28% of all sales and government payments. Partnerships, 6% of all farms, had 18% of sales and government payments. Large-scale family farms with annual gross incomes in

28

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

Table 3.2  2016 US census dataa Sales class (annual $) 1000–9999 10,000– 24,999 25,000– 49,999 50,000– 99,999 100,000– 249,999 250,000– 499,999 500,000– 999,999 1000,000+

244,954

243

11.6

39

% Change of farm size 2014–2018b 9.9–9.4 10,000 – 99,999 – 21.2 – 20.8 Unknown

567,438

495

6.1

64

Unknown

141,675

835

6.6

1159

14.3–14.8

95,653

1288

4.5

1211

13.8–14.3

77,562

1704

3.6

1294

17.1–15.4

165,320

2687

3.8

2124

24.1–25.3

Number of farms (thousand) 1145 152,873

Average farm Percent of Land in farms size (acres) farms (million acres) 117 56.6 1634 316 7.2 48

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1_Chapter_1_ US/usv1.txt. See Table 65. Accessed December 2019 b https://www.statista.com/statistics/196110/us-distribution-of-land-in-farms-by-economic-salesclass/. Accessed December 2019 a

excess of $1 million were only 2.9% (about 59,740) of the 2.06 million US farms and produced just over 45% of all agricultural sales.19 The increasing dominance of large farms is further illustrated by the fact that in 2015, farms with income over $146,000 received half of all government payments (Fig. 3.1). Today, fewer farmers support more non-farmers in the United States and several non-US residents through food exports. The average age of US farmers was 58.3 in 2016. It has gone up in every census of agriculture since 1974.20 Of established US farmers, 73% are 55–64 years old, 35% are over 65, and only 2% are under 35. Cost of land and equipment to begin to farm make it difficult if not impossible for the young to begin to farm. The aging of farmers is an agricultural, and, although it ought to be, it is not a national concern. It is not wrong to suggest that there are only three ways to begin to farm: patrimony, matrimony, and parsimony. In 1900, 38% of the US population worked in agriculture and 25% worked in factories. In 1992, about 1% of US citizens were farmers (about 2.8 million), and although their numbers continued to decline, their efficiency increased. In 1970, one farmer supported 48 non-farmers. By 1992, each farmer fed 128 others (94.3 Americans and 33.7 people in other countries).21,22 In 2012, each farmer fed about 155 others and used less land, energy, and water and produced fewer harmful emissions. There has not been massive unemployment because the reduction in the agricultural workforce was more than compensated by growth in other sectors of the economy. But by 1990, one farmer supported 100 non-farmers, including many outside the United States. Now, a reasonable estimate is that one US farmer feeds 166 people.

29

1  A Brief Story of Agriculture

Farms and their value of production by ERS farm type, 2018 Percent of U.S. farms or production 100

89.7

Share of farms

Share of production

80 60 45.9 40 20

21.1

20.6 12.4 5.5

0

Small (GCFI less than $350,000)

Midsize (GCFI $350,000 to $999,999)

2.7 Large scale (GCFI $1,000.000 or more)

2.1 Nonfamily

Note: GCFI refers to annual gross cash farm income before expenses. ERS refers to Economic Research Service. Nonfamily farms are those where the principal operator and their relatives do not own a majority of the business. Source: USDA, Economic Research Service and National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Resource Management Survey. Data as of November 27, 2019.

Fig. 3.1  Farms and their value of production by economic research service farm type in 2018

In the twentieth century, US agriculture was labor-intensive and occurred on many small diversified farms in rural America where more than half the US population lived. Now, in agriculture’s chemical era, production is concentrated on a small number of large, specialized farms where about 1% of the US population lives. Those farms grow more than their grandparents and great grandparents ever dreamed possible. More than 21 million people have full- or part-time employment (11% of the total US employment) related to the agriculture and food sector.23 Direct farm employment accounted for only 2.6 million US jobs in 2016. Hired workers and contract labor were 41% of agricultural labor up from 25% in 2003. The number of US farms peaked at 6.8 million in 1935 when farms averaged about 150 acres. In 2017, 2.1+ million US farms averaged about 444 acres.24 In spite of the fact that farm size increased, full-time25 labor needs of US agriculture steadily declined, while total farm output more than doubled from 1948 to 2015. Family farms where most of the business is owned by the farmer accounted for 90+ percent of US farms in 2016. These changes are not unique to American agriculture. At every census since 1841, the percent of people working in agriculture and fishing has declined in the United Kingdom. In 1841, 22% of people worked in this industry and by 2014, fewer than 1.5% did. In 1938, Britain employed a million people to produce a third

30

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

of the food needed for a nation of 48 million. In 1988, only 450,000 British farmers and farm workers produced three-quarters of the food for 58 million people. The number of farms decreased 6%, and those working on farms decreased 19% from 2000 to 2010 even though agriculture occupied 70% of the UK’s land area. Production from each British agricultural worker increased at about twice the rate of increase for the rest of the economy.26 In Germany, the number of farms and the number of farm workers decreased 25% from 2000 to 2010. Less than 1% of the German population farms and less than 3% of the population of Germany works on farms. Farmers account for less than 2% of Europe’s working population. The decline in the number of US farms and farmers is real. However, it is important to acknowledge that US agriculture depends on a shrinking pool of foreign— often undocumented—labor. Some estimate that half of America’s farm workers are undocumented and the current debate over immigration threatens agricultural production especially for fruit and vegetables, which must be picked by hand when crops are ripe.27

2  Beginning the Study of Weeds To continue this brief history of agriculture’s chemical era, I have chosen the story of weed control because I know it best and it illustrates how agriculture has changed. There are many excellent presentations of the history of agriculture, but that story is beyond the scope and intent of this book. Watson’s 2018 book—Pesticides and Agriculture28—is a well-done description of the role of the pesticide industry in the development of modern, global agriculture. It is indisputable that farmers have always been aware of weeds, diseases, and insect pests in their crops, although the evidence for their awareness and concern is nearly all anecdotal. It makes sense that farmers were aware of pests, even though they couldn’t do much to control them. Clark and Fletcher29 suggested in 1923 that the “annual losses due to the occurrence of pernicious weeds on farm land in Canada, although acknowledged in a general way, are far greater than is realized.” They did not deny that farmers were aware of the weeds and their negative effects, but they clearly asserted that “farmers gave little critical attention to the weeds growing among their crops.” We can be certain that the “critical attention” Clark and Fletcher thought was absent increased slowly, primarily because the general attitude seemed to be “weeds were a curse which must be endured, and about which little could be done except by methods which were incidental to crop production, and by laborious supplemental hand methods.” It is interesting to note that many of the weeds in Clark and Fletcher’s book are shown in most current weed identification books, which suggest that all of the research, the new technology, and the use recommendations have, in most cases, solved the weed problem in crops each year, but the weeds are still with us. The first US Congressional appropriation for weed control was made in 1901 for work on control of johnsongrass, 23 years after Congress had appropriated funds for

2  Beginning the Study of Weeds

31

work on cotton insect pests.30 Petroleum (oil-based as opposed to synthetically derived) herbicides were first used on California crop land in 1924 and soon became widely accepted in southwestern states. In 1942, oils were used extensively for weed control in carrots and subsequently in forest nurseries.31 French scientists sprayed apple trees with dinitro dyes to control mosses, algae, and lichens. Some noticed that grasses that were wet from the spray did not die, and that observation, or, more likely, a series of observations, led to the use of dinitros as herbicides for selective control of broadleaved weeds in cereals and flax. Sinox (sodium dinitro cresylate) developed by Pastac32 in 1933 was the first selective organic herbicide introduced in the United States. Weed science cannot claim the historical lineage of entomology or plant pathology. No one disputes that weeds have been present as long as other pests, but they and their control have not been studied as long. The major figures in early weed science all completed their education and developed their careers in the twentieth century. Most descriptions of the history of weed science and the dominant rhetoric do not include views from outside the discipline because they are regarded as negative, emotional, and therefore unscientific. Those with such views are regarded, in Wojcik’s33 terms, as being mindlessly against conventional agricultural practice, and it is assumed that their critique is not worth listening to. They are subjected to what Roy34 calls the experts anthem: “You don’t understand and it’s too complicated to explain. The subtext, of course is: “Don’t worry your little head about it. Go and play with your toys. Leave the real world to us.” Most historical accounts of weed science do not compare and contrast views. They do not consider long-term unintended effects or the actual and ideal role of values in the development of weed science. They report some of what happened but rarely ask why. Insects transport diseases (e.g., malaria); harm, sting, and irritate humans; and reduce crop yields. Weeds, with a few exceptions, do not cause direct harm to humans. Those that do (e.g., poison ivy and poison oak) can be avoided. Many weeds aggravate human allergies but most do not. Insects and insecticides were, respectively, causes of and solutions to human disease problems. Weeds and herbicides were agricultural problems and were not of general societal concern. There were a few scientists interested in the study of weeds and in developing techniques to reduce the crop losses caused by weeds. There were only three full-time weed men in 1934 and not too many part-time ones.35 By late 1951, 46 state agricultural experiment stations had active weed research programs,36 and most of them were working on weed control with herbicides. Herbicides, a subset of the general class of pesticides, greatly expanded the opportunities for vegetation management/weed control. They disrupt the physiology of a plant over a long enough period of time to kill it or severely reduce its growth. Herbicides sphere of influence extends beyond their ability to kill or control plants. They change the chemical environment of plants, which can be more easily manipulated than the climatic, soil, or biotic environment. Herbicides reduce or eliminate labor and machine requirements and modify crop production techniques. When used appropriately, they are production tools that can increase efficiency and

32

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

may reduce energy requirements. They do not eliminate energy requirements because they are petroleum-based and machines are required for application. Understanding the nature, properties, effects, and uses of herbicides is essential if one is to be conversant with modern weed management. Management is not accomplished exclusively by herbicides, but they dominate in the developed world. Whether one likes them or deplores them, they cannot be ignored. To ignore them is to be unaware of the opportunities and problems of modern weed management in agriculture. Ignoring or dismissing herbicides may lead to an inability to solve weed problems in many agricultural systems and may delay development of better weed management systems. Increases in crop yields and labor productivity in each agricultural era were caused by extensive farm mechanization, improved technology (hybrid seeds, planting techniques, irrigation), the widespread use of agricultural chemicals (e.g., fertilizer and pesticides), improved education of farmers, and improved farming practices. The chemical era of agriculture developed rapidly after 1945. Chemicals had been used in agriculture for a long time, but their use was sporadic, frequently ineffective, and lacked any scientific base. Developed country agriculture is now in the era of extensive and intensive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and is fully engaged in agriculture’s next era—biotechnology. Desperate potato growers in Ireland tried many things to control the Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata). All attempts failed until sometime in 1868 when a French farmer threw some leftover green paint on his potato plants. We do not know if the story is true, and, if it is, we cannot know why he did it, but it worked. The green pigment in the paint was Paris green, a combination of arsenic and copper, commonly used in paint, fabric, and wallpaper. Subsequently, farmers diluted it with flour and dusted it on their potatoes or mixed it in water and sprayed it. Paris green (Copper acetoarsenite) was a godsend to farmers. In Mann’s37 view, chemists saw it as something with which they could tinker. If arsenic killed potato beetles, what other insects would it kill and would other chemicals work for other agricultural pest problems? The answer, of course, was yes. A French scientist found that a solution of copper sulfate and lime killed the causal organism (Phytophthora infestans) of late blight. Thus, spraying potatoes with Paris green and copper sulfate relieved (solved?) the beetle and the blight problem. The modern pesticide industry had begun. Bordeaux mixture (copper sulfate, lime, and water—also a green mixture) was applied to grapevines for the control of downy mildew in the late nineteenth century. It may be true that it was not first applied to control any disease. An unknown French grower put it on the vines on the edge of his vineyard to discourage passersby from stealing his grapes. Who wants a grape that has an unnatural green coating? In another perhaps apocryphal story, a passerby, a careful observer, noticed that Bordeaux mixture also turned yellow charlock (Sinapis arvensis L. (aka wild mustard) leaves black. That led Bonnet, in France in 1896, to show that a solution of copper sulfate would selectively kill yellow charlock plants growing with cereals. In the United States, Bolley38 studied iron sulfate, copper sulfate, copper nitrate, and sodium arsenite for selective control of broadleaved weeds in cereal grains. Bolley,

2  Beginning the Study of Weeds

33

a Plant Pathologist, at the North Dakota State Agricultural College, was the first in the United States to report on selective use of salts of heavy metals as herbicides in cereals. The use of inorganic herbicides developed rapidly in Europe and England, but not in the United States. The primary reasons for slow development were lack of adequate equipment and frequent failure because the heavy metal salts were dependent on foliar uptake that did not readily occur in the low rainfall and humidity of the primary grain-growing areas—the Western states. There were other agronomic practices such as increased use of fertilizer, improved tillage, and new varieties that increased crop yield in the United States without weed control. US farmers also could always move on to the endless frontier and were not as interested, as they would be later, in yield-enhancing technology. Historians of weed science will note 1941 as an important year. Pokorny39 first synthesized 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D). It was reported to have no activity as a fungicide or insecticide. Accounts vary about when the first work on growth-regulator herbicides was done.40 Zimmerman and Hitchcock41 (1942) of the Boyce Thompson Institute (now at Cornell University) first described the substituted phenoxy acids (2,4-D is one) as growth regulators (auxins), but did not report herbicidal activity. A Chicago carnation grower’s question—“What is the effect of illuminating gas (acetylene) on carnations?”—led to the eventual discovery of plant growth-­ regulating substances by Boyce Thompson scientists. E.  J. Kraus, Head of the University of Chicago Botany Department, had studied plant growth regulation for several years. He thought these new, potential plant growth regulators that often distorted plant growth when used at higher than growth-regulating doses, and even killed plants, might be used beneficially to selectively kill plants. He saw potential use as “chemical plant killers” (herbicides) and advocated purposeful application in toxic doses for plant control. Because of World War II and the potential for biological warfare against an enemy’s crops (e.g., German potatoes), much of this work was done under contract from the US Army.42 Similar work for similar reasons was done in Great Britain.43 The chemicals were not used for biological warfare during World War II. Complete chronologies and history of development of the hormone herbicides are available.44 Hamner and Tukey45 reported the first field trials with 2,4-D for successful selective control of broadleaved weeds. These and several other discoveries were the beginning of modern chemical weed control. All previous herbicides were just a prelude to the rapid development that occurred following discovery of the selective activity of the phenoxyacetic acid herbicides. The first US patent (No. 2,390,941) for 2,4-D as an herbicide was obtained by F.D. Jones of the American Chemical Paint Co. in 1945.46 There had been a patent (No. 2,322,761) in 1943 of 2,4-D as a growth-regulating substance. Jones patented only its activity (the fact that it killed plants) but made no claim about selective action (the fact that it killed some, but not all, plants). The great era of herbicide development came at a time when world agriculture was involved in a revolution of labor reduction, increased mechanization, and new

34

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

methods to improve crop quality and produce higher yields at reduced cost. Herbicide development built on and contributed to changing agriculture. Farmers were ready for improved methods of selective weed control. The rapid acceptance of technological developments that changed the practice of agriculture has been characterized in terms of economic, social, political, and philosophical attitudes by Perkins and Holochuck47 (1993). Farmers wanted to improve their operation in competition with other farmers and were willing to adopt new technology that enabled them to improve their economic competitiveness. New technology was socially acceptable because as independent entrepreneurs, technological innovations could be used to gain advantage independent of neighbors. Politically, farmers welcomed technical assistance that came from public laboratories (land-grant universities) and government price support systems that allowed farm operations to remain private. Fiercely independent farmers welcomed opportunities to do what they wanted on their farms. They welcomed technology developed at no apparent cost to them that could be adopted without interference from anyone. Finally, philosophically, farmers perceived that a major part of their task was controlling nature, bending it to human will. Although this was a never-ending challenge, success was apparent when technology that increased production was readily available. Herbicides fit well in each category. It is true that no weed control method has ever been abandoned, new ones have been added, and the relative importance of methods has changed. The need for cultivation, hoeing, etc. has not disappeared. These methods persist in small-scale agriculture and many horticultural and vegetable crops. Older methods have become less important in developed world agriculture because of the rising costs of labor, narrower profit margins, and development of successful alternative technology. Pesticides sales and the amount used have increased (Tables 3.3 and 3.4). Herbicides dominate. In the United States in 2007, 61% of all pesticides were herbicides, which accounted for 44% of all sales. Just ten herbicides accounted for 75% of sales. US farmers routinely apply herbicides to more than 85% of US crop acres. A study of 40 US crops showed treatment of 220 million acres at a cost of Table 3.3  World sales of crop protection productsa Pesticide Herbicides/PGRb Insecticides Fungicides Other Total

1960 1970 1980 (Million US dollars) 160 918 4756 288 945 3944 320 702 2204 32 135 696 800 2700 11,600

1990

1997

2001

2012

12,600 7840 5600 1960 28,000

14,700 9100 5400 1700 30,900

14,118 8763 6027 2848 31,756

24,727 16,023 14,565 606 55,921

Gianessi, L.P. and C.S. Silvers 2000. Trends in crop pesticide use: Comparing 1992 and 1997. Nat. Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, D.C., 165  pp. Hopkins, W.L. 1994. Global herbicide Directory. 1st Ed. Ag. Chem. Information Services. Indianapolis, IN. 181  pp. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/documents/pesticides-industry-salesusage-2016_0.pdf. Accessed January 2018) b PGR plant growth regulator a

2  Beginning the Study of Weeds

35

Table 3.4  US pesticide use in tonsa Pesticide Herbicides Insecticides Fungicides Rodenticides Other Total a

1990 Tons 206,384 86,183 22,680 11,340 13,980 339,977

1995

2000

2005

2007

209,106 104,326 22,226 11,340 13,608 360,606

195,592 100,244 19,958 11,340 27,216 364,709

190,962 75,749 21,319 11,399 26,535 325,906

200,488 74,471 19,958 11,340 18,597 328,954

https://ourworldindata.org/fertilizer-and-pesticides. Accessed July 2018

$6.6 billion.48 In 2001, the global market for nonagricultural pesticides was more than US$7 billion/year and was growing about 4% a year. The global agrochemical market in 2016 was worth US$215.2 billion and is expected to increase to $ 308.9 billion by 2025.49 The North American has been the largest global market although growth will be slow, whereas the Asia-Pacific market is forecast to grow at 7.9% and become the world’s largest pesticide market. The global market for pesticides was $37.5 billion in 2011, $46.1 billion in 2012, and $65.3 in 2017 and as noted above is expected to reach $308.9 billion by 2025. The global market just for turf and ornamental pesticides was estimated to be $3.6 billion in 2016 and is projected to be almost $6.9 billion by 2022. The turf market alone is approximately US$1 billion per year, about half of which is used on golf courses. The global herbicide market was estimated to be $13.5 billion from 1990 to 1993, and a third ($4.5 billion) was the US market. Japan was the next largest with $1.5 billion in sales. When the entire European market was considered, it was second largest, with France ($1.25 billion) the largest single country.50 In 2012, world expenditures on all herbicides were US$24,727 million; 44% (of total) was herbicides. The United States spent $5115 million, lower than in 2000. More than 50% of the sales are in North and South America. Of these amounts, 78% is used in agriculture, with the rest nearly evenly divided between industrial, commercial government (12%) and home and garden use (10%). The National Agricultural Statistics Service of the US Department of Agriculture regularly surveys selected states and selected crops to determine the extent of fertilizer and pesticide use. The 1997 report (1996 data) shows that herbicides were used on a major portion of the acreage of each crop surveyed. The specific figures for the crops surveyed in 2015–201951 are as follows: % of acres treated crop Corn Cotton Potato Soybean Wheat, spring Wheat, winter

Year 2019 2015 2016 2018 2017 2017

Herbicides 97 92 94 99 96 61

Insecticides 17 76 76 16 45 25

Fungicides 13 40 40 13 12 6

36

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

Crops surveyed in each year show similar use and each illustrates the dominance of herbicides. Glyphosate (Round-Up™) has been the major herbicide in corn and soybeans. Since commercialization in 1974, it has grown to dominate the US herbicide market. Because of the rapid development of weed resistance, its effectiveness is declining. The wheat data may illustrate the low profitability of the crop and the lack of weed problems for which herbicide solutions exist. Worldwide in 1990, about 45% of total pesticide sales were herbicides (similar to the United States) (endnote 53). The market is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few multinational corporations. Nearly half the companies in pesticide discovery (but not in development and marketing) in 1994 were Japanese. The number of companies marketing herbicides in the United States has steadily declined from more than 43 in the early 1960s to 12 in 2012.52 Three are based in the United States. The others are headquartered in Europe and Japan, but all operate in the United States. Five companies dominate the world agrochemical market: Syngenta Int. AG (Switzerland), Bayer CropScience AG (Germany), BASF SE (Germany), Corteva SE (United States), and UPL Ltd. (India). While the number of companies engaged in herbicide discovery, development, and sales has steadily declined, the number of available herbicides has steadily increased. The number of herbicides in the first edition (1967) of the Weed Science Society of America’s (WSSA) Herbicide Handbook was 97. The tenth edition (2014) had 232. The number of herbicides increased as did the number of different chemical families in which herbicidal activity has been discovered (27 in the 1st edition to 67  in the 10th). Similarly, the number of WSSA-approved herbicides increased from 304 in 1995 to 357 in 2004 but decreased slightly to 325 in 2011.53 Milne listed 442 herbicides approved for use somewhere in the world.54 Because of their significant advantages and extensive research base, herbicides dominate modern weed control. Seventy-five herbicides were marketed between 1950 and 1969. Appleby55 included 184 herbicides marketed between 1970 and 2005, an increase of 2.4 times. Although the herbicide chemical industry has undergone extensive consolidation, as have many other manufacturing industries, it has not diminished discovery and development of new herbicides in known chemical families. Worldwide sales increase is attributed mainly to the increased use of herbicides on genetically modified crops especially in China.56

3  Advantages of Agricultural Technology: Pesticides 3.1  Energy Agriculture collects and stores the electromagnetic energy of the sun as chemical (food) energy in plant and animal products. Plants do this well, but few other life-­ forms can do it in a way that makes food for people. Farming invests about three calories of fuel energy in soil tillage, fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation, and harvest to

3  Advantages of Agricultural Technology: Pesticides

37

help plants convert sunlight into 1 calorie of stored chemical energy in food. When the energy costs for processing, distribution, and preparation are included, approximately 9.8 calories of energy are expended for every calorie of food energy produced in the US,57 ergo—an energetically inefficient enterprise. However, many argue that it is not agriculture’s task to produce energy—it is to produce food and that is done very well. Pesticides account for only 3% of the energy used in agricultural production. On farm, energy consumption represents only a little over 3% of the total US energy consumption. About 18% of the energy used in entire the US food system is used to move food from farm to table. A technology that does not create reproducible gains in value will not succeed. Pest management with synthetic organic pesticides has become an essential part of developed country agriculture. About 3% of the total energy input for the US corn production system is directly related to herbicides which are used on 97% of US corn acreage (endnote 52). The major energy consumers in the US corn production system are nitrogen fertilizer, diesel fuel, and irrigation. The corn system has one of the lowest energy efficiencies among the world’s crop production systems. Available data verify that US agricultural energy efficiency is low, yields are high, and the system produces reproducible gains in value, which is good for growers and consumers.

3.2  Time/Profit Broadcast herbicide use in corn is the least time-consuming weeding strategy, whereas preemergence rotary hoeing followed by two cultivations requires the most time.58 Swanton et al.59 showed to the Canadian province of Ontario that energy use per hectare decreased 19.7% for corn and by 46.3% for soybean production systems from 1975 to 1991 when herbicides were the dominant control strategy Gianessi and Sankula60 calculated a net loss of $21 billion for 40 crops if herbicides were not used on the 220 million acres on which the crops were grown. Three crops (corn, cotton, and soybean) accounted for 37% of the loss. Herbicides have been adopted rapidly and nearly completely since their introduction in the late 1950s. Gianessi and Reigner61 proposed that US crop production would decline by about 20% if herbicides were not used. They have been and are projected to continue to be a major part of modern agriculture because they are less expensive and more efficient and eliminate the disadvantages of tillage (time, erosion, crop damage). Herbicides and other agricultural technology developments contributed to “creative destruction,”62 a feature of capitalism whereby jobs are created by technological advance, while others, and their associated businesses, are eliminated. What happened to the workers who lost their jobs and the farmers has not been an agricultural or societal concern. The negative effects and real costs of productive progress have been a price that those who have created modern agricultural technology have not had to pay.

38

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

Pimentel et al.63 estimated costs and losses with herbicide use and with alternative methods of weed control but reached a different conclusion because they assumed that with careful management, little additional crop loss (only $341 million) would occur. Clements et al.64 confirm the proposition that energy for pest management represented a small proportion of on-farm energy use for food production and proposed that a “large portion of energy could be conserved in alternative weed management systems by elimination of tillage and/or herbicide use.” Potential energy savings from reduction or elimination of tillage was greater than for elimination of herbicides. They also suggested that there would be a potentially high-energy requirement if herbicides were eliminated. Energy savings are achieved by alternative herbicide use techniques such as reducing the total area of application, using band application instead of broadcast spraying, and choosing herbicides that require less energy to produce. The latter is probably not a primary criterion for most farmers; efficacy is. As claimed above, many in agriculture argue that the purpose of agriculture is to produce food, not energy. Others argue that the US system is so dependent on petroleum energy that it is not sustainable. Many believe that modern weed control with herbicides is essential to maintain the present, highly productive US agricultural system and is justified because herbicides represent only a small part of the total energy input. The US and all other agro-industrial complexes are driven by the mandate to achieve maximum, profitable, efficient production. The system also demands externalizing as many unintended costs as possible. The strategy of optimization rests on two assumptions: the natural resources and sinks in nature, required to sustain inputs and externalize the waste, will always be there, and the management required to achieve the goal with present or developing technology will be successful. Many question these assumptions and suggest the focus should be on adaptation to the natural world rather than economic optimization and dominance. Others65 argue that optimization within the present system of agriculture is the only way to feed a growing world population.

3.3  Labor and Soil Tillage Requirements Herbicides are advantageous when labor is expensive. Costs of weed control for organic vegetable growers in California can be as high as $1000/acre compared to $50 for herbicides for the same, or better, weed control. Herbicides can be beneficial and profitable when labor is scarce and expensive. They are often advantageous because they control weeds in crop rows where cultivation is not possible. Selective herbicides reduce the need for soil tillage and reduce destruction of soil structure by decreasing the number of trips over a field with heavy equipment. It should be noted that the above advantages are often presented quite differently. For example, cost is presented herein as a disadvantage—herbicides are expensive. Others regard the cost of herbicides as an advantage, because they may be less

4  Disadvantages of Pesticides

39

expensive than tillage with its potential for soil erosion. One must be aware of the quality and possible bias of the evidence presented in support of a conclusion. In the current jargon, one must ask and know where the speaker is coming from.

4  Disadvantages of Pesticides 4.1  Cost It is often suggested that pesticides reduce crop production costs. Many disagree and suggest they are a net cost because they are a direct cost, application equipment is an added cost, and, of most importance, there are large externalized societal costs.66 The cost of manufacturing, developing, and introducing a new pesticide to market has steadily increased. CropLife America estimated that each new product costs $286 million and takes 11 years of research and development. The crop protection industry spent $2.6 billion on new innovations in 2014,67 but no new site of action for herbicides had been discovered in the last 30 years, until the discovery of the mode of action of cinmethylin which inhibits fatty acid synthesis by targeting acyl-­ ACP-­thioesterase.68 That was followed by research of Yan et  al.69 on resistance-­ gene-­directed discovery of a natural product herbicide with a new mode of action. Development costs have become so high that crops once regarded as major markets are now minor due to required financial investments and the increasing possibility that initial costs may not be recovered in sales.70 Simultaneously, the availability of older pesticides is decreasing as more stringent environmental and toxicological requirements result in voluntary removal from the market. But in spite of regulatory restraints, the number of available herbicides has continued to rise.

4.2  Mammalian Toxicity A major public concern about pesticides is mammalian toxicity. Many people are concerned because all must eat and therefore there is no choice about potentially toxic residues in food, especially when one does not know they are present. For example, in 1996, there were 441 probable cases of pesticide intoxication in California and 271 positive cases. Most (65%) were due to insecticides.71 The World Health Organization estimates that 1 million cases of pesticide poisoning occur every year resulting in more than 250,000 deaths, 99% of which occur in developing countries.72 More than 20 deaths occur in the United States every year due to pesticides, mostly due to suicidal ingestion. According to the United Nations General Assembly report,73 98% of farm poisonings from pesticides are not even reported. Developing countries use 25% of pesticides and experience 99% of the deaths.74

40

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

4.3  Environmental Persistence Some pesticides persist in the environment. None persists forever, but all have a measurable environmental life. In some cases, but not all, a pesticide can persist in the soil from one crop season to the next or longer. This restricts crop rotational possibilities and may injure succeeding crops. They can be hazards to target organisms and other species after use. Plants that are not targets may be affected by drift or inappropriate application. A 2019 example is the agricultural, regulatory, and public debate over drift of the herbicide dicamba applied to tolerant crops (GMOs) which compelled the entire herbicide industry to carefully consider the future of herbicide regulation amid the rising concern of the American public.

4.4  Resistance Herbicide resistance is a decreased response of a weed species population to a herbicide resulting in survival of a segment of the population that is resistant. Such resistance is defined as the ability to withstand exposure to a potentially harmful agent without being injured and results in a decrease or absence of response of a population of a pest to a pesticide over time. It was first reported for a herbicide in 195775 and has become more widespread since the advent of GM crops. The problem is of increasing concern to weed scientists, manufacturers, and growers. Unfortunately, the predictable result is due to using the same herbicide on the same land several years in a row. The same result concerns the medical community due to the decreasing effectiveness of antibiotics. In February 2020, there were 512 unique cases (species x site of action) of herbicide-resistant weeds globally that included 262 species (152 dicots and 110 monocots). Weeds have evolved resistance to 23 of the 26 known herbicide sites of action and to 167 different herbicides. Herbicide-­ resistant weeds have been reported in 93 crops in 70 countries as reported in the International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds.76

4.5  Monoculture Agriculture in the world’s industrialized/developed nations is characterized by monoculture—large land areas devoted to a single crop. It is acceptance of crop optimization as the best way to survive. This is ideal for use of selective herbicides, and they have been criticized because they encourage monoculture and discourage diversity. Expansion of pest control technology into developing countries is not always wise because of their existing agricultural plant diversity. There is ecological strength in diversity that should not be inhibited or reduced by extensive use of

4  Disadvantages of Pesticides

41

pesticides, especially where the long-term agricultural and social consequences of extensive monoculture, if not unknown, have not been thoroughly examined.

4.6  Other Pesticides are often inconsistent in their control because they are affected by environmental conditions and results of these interactions are not always predictable. Herbicide use in many crops may, intentionally or accidentally, eliminate all plants except the crop, and that may lead to excessive soil erosion. Precision is required when pesticides are used. One must think carefully about what to use, when to use it, how much to use, and how surplus chemical will be handled. Pesticides should not be used casually; intelligence is required. However, their widespread use in developed country agriculture has led to an often unmentioned aspect of pesticide use in agriculture—what many refer to as the de-skilling of agriculture. A farmer consults with the chemical company representative, the agricultural extension agent, or someone who advises what should be done to manage weeds or other pests. The recommendation of the external agent is usually accepted perhaps after checking with another source. The thinking about what should be done is based on the expert’s recommendation and consideration of cost. Thinking by the user about whether what can be done should be done is often ignored because experts are expert and can be trusted. When pest management can be accomplished by seeking advice from an authoritative source, the farmer may have to think only about what it costs rather than consider other options. The decision of what to do is often made by someone else. Finally, because pesticides are so good at what they do, they may actually create problems after their use. Herbicides control certain weeds while leaving a crop unscathed. They are designed to be selective. Natural plant communities are usually polycultures (not a universally true generalization). Diversity, multiple species assemblies, is the norm. When all plants are eliminated save the crop, other plants (weeds) will move into the environment created, and they may be more difficult to control than those eliminated. Recent research77 has shown that several herbicides influence the nutritional content of sweet corn. It has always been known that pesticides applied to crops surely transform the plants in subtle, perhaps unknown, ways. The research shows that the four herbicides changed nutritional value and flavor which may have been expected but was previously unknown. All herbicides increased protein content 4–12%, and some affected phosphorus, magnesium, and manganese levels. In some cases, fructose and glucose were increased. Pesticides, like any technology, have advantages and disadvantages that must be weighed carefully to consider intended and unintended consequences prior to use.

42

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

5  The Paradox The world uses a vast array of synthetic organic chemicals to manage insects, weeds, fungi, and other organisms that may cause significant yield losses and sometimes only bother and other times may harm humans. Pesticides have made it possible to protect millions of people from malaria and other insect-borne diseases. Of the pesticides used in the world, 80% are used in agriculture: approximately 40% are herbicides, 33% insecticides, and 10% fungicides. As noted above, sales have been expanding rapidly throughout the world. There is no question that pesticides increase crop yields and may cause harm to the environment, to people, and to other creatures. There are 42% fewer species of invertebrates in streams with severe pesticide contamination, and there are 85% fewer new queens in bumblebee hives exposed to pesticides.78 It is generally accepted by the agricultural community that pesticides are essential to maintaining yields and feeding a growing world population. They have been aggressively promoted and are a legitimate global human rights concern because of their detrimental effects. In contrast, the UN general assembly (endnote 77) report denies the claim that pesticides are necessary to feed the world. It regards pesticides as a short-term solution that undermines the rights to adequate food and health. It is worthy of note that the human right to food was recognized in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The right was derived from the Covenant to which 160 states have agreed as of May 2012. At the 1996 World Food Summit, governments reaffirmed the right to food and committed themselves to halve the number of hungry and malnourished by 2015. The number has increased over the past years. Borlaug79 cautioned “that agricultural scientists have a moral obligation to warn the political, educational, and religious leaders about the magnitude and seriousness of the arable land, food, population and environmental problems that lie ahead”. We have assumed that technological solutions to food production would be used to reduce and eventually eliminate hunger. We further assumed that the undeniable productive success of the green revolution was demonstrable, concrete proof that the key to further agricultural success was faith in scientific savoir faire2 and technological know-how. At the same time, we did not recognize or give sufficient credence to the role of increasing agricultural production as a factor in population growth. The rationale for ever-increasing pesticide use in agriculture was that the costs associated with the inevitable pollution, environmental damage, and harm to human health were justified by the production benefits. Atreya et al.80 argue that the resultant soil, water, and air pollution, pest resistance and resurgence, bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience caused by pesticides are unintentional, solvable developmental problems. However, they also argue that if these costs are recognized and accounted for, the benefits from the cur Capacity for appropriate action.

2

5  The Paradox

43

rent use of pesticides could be outweighed by the cost of pollution and ill human health. There are genuine choices that arise in both principle and practice in the course of technical and social transformation.81 Agricultural technology has repeatedly entered a series of social contracts, the terms of which are revealed if problems develop. Knowing all the technological ingredients of modern agriculture has done little to help us understand how it affects the texture of modern life. There is a strong implication that those who will experience the inevitable change/risk are charged simply to endure it. Agriculture’s practitioners seemed to have avoided the question of whether or not industrialized agribusiness is simply a renovation of older ways of farming or if its well-known productive achievements and equally well-known negative effects amount to an entirely new desirable phenomenon. The agricultural realm holds that increasing production as the sine qua non of its existence. Does the world need more production? It certainly does in the developing countries, but Flegal et  al.82 presented data from the National Center for Health Statistics study that showed about 1 in 3 US adults was overweight—almost 100 million people. More than 1 in 3 were considered obese, and 1 in 13 adults were considered to be extremely obese. In 2010, obesity and related illnesses killed about 3 million people, while the much more well-publicized deaths due to terrorism killed 216,915 people from 2006 to 2016.83 From 1975 through 2015, 3024 Americans died from terrorist attacks in the United States, including 2983 who died in the 9/11/2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. For the average American, sugar is a far deadlier threat than Al-Qaeda or ISIS. Thus, one can argue that we may need a different diet but we don’t need more food. More people in the developed world die from eating too much than from eating too little.84 Agriculture’s practitioners have seen the environment as a target for domination (thou shalt have dominion over and subdue—Genesis 1:28), a frontier awaiting our mastery. The environment is where we have moved to and taken over. The solution to environmental problems has become an economic problem. What’s it worth to you? How much are you willing to pay for clean air and clean water? What’s your upper limit? Modern environmentalism really began with Rachel Carson’s (1962) publication of Silent Spring which was widely disparaged in the agricultural realm (see Chap. 2). The value of the environment is paramount in both of Gould’s85 nonoverlapping magisteria (see Chap. 1). The agricultural realm regards the environment as the source of what we need to fulfill our obligation of feeding the world. Environmentalists see the environment as troubled, and because we are dependent on it, we need to restore its health and its capacity for self-renewal . Kirschenmann86 sees the challenge of restoration as the core of any system of sustainable agriculture. We cannot endlessly extract from the environment; it is something we belong to—that we are dependent on. Worster87 asks if there should be a self-imposed restraint on using the Earth in the long-term interest of humans and other living things. He also suggests that the miracle of technology has made the Earth perhaps more habitable but ironically a more dangerous place to live.

44

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

We have not been compelled, but we ought to ask what is science for (see endnote 90). From the mid-twentieth century, the quality of science in the United States was evaluated almost exclusively in terms of its ability to deliver technological innovations. That was particularly so in agriculture. Kirschenmann suggests that the most appropriate science is not one that leads us to detach ourselves from the Earth’s vibrant biotic community. The most appropriate science would be one that invites us into conversation with all the complexity of the biotic community. In contrast, Otto88 claims that humankind is absolutely dependent on science and technology to rescue us from the ecological realities of global warming, species extinction, etc. Agricultural scientists have made great strides to improve crop production. However, when they claim credit for improving production and keeping the cost of food low, they must also accept society’s right to hold them responsible for problems they have regarded as externalities. Modern pest management has developed with and has been highly dependent on the science of pesticides. The challenges of pest management are enormous, and as pointed out by Edwards and Hannah,89 the potential input from the wider plant science community is largely unrecognized. Reddy and James90 claim that weed science has been slow to “catch up” with progress toward precision agriculture in other disciplines such as irrigation and fertilizer management. The evidence from any current issue of the journals Weed Science and Weed Technology is clear—herbicides continue to dominate weed science research and thereby contribute to one of agriculture’s moral dilemmas. Integrated weed management and precision weed management are gaining time and attention within the weed science community. Young91 points out the true integrated weed management requires a high-level of plant ecological and biological knowledge, technological machinery, and decision-making algorithms that can respond rapidly to changes in weeds and the environment. There are few field-scale examples of true integrated weed management due to the lack of suitable technological tools, and there is a need for, in Young’s view, a paradigm shift. For example, a symposium held during the 2018 annual meeting of the Weed Science Society of America discussed the present state and potential of weed removal automation, which has not received much attention from weed scientists. The primary focus remains on herbicides as the primary weed management technology. A 2019 paper by Fennimore and Tourte92 describes their work with automated weeding machines and argues that in addition to their advantages for weed management, they also have much lower development costs and much less complex regulations, which gives them a substantial advantage over herbicides for vegetable crops. A desirable solution93 to problem weeds may be robots, which have the potential to decrease agrochemical application and transform the way we grow food. All engaged in agriculture and all concerned with the environment should become historically conscious which requires that we know the history of the stories we are investigating and those we are a part of. It demands that we have a sensitivity to the great range of scientific progress and philosophical thought.

5  The Paradox

45

Notes 1. Hobbes, T. 1651. Leviathan. Part 1, Chap. 13. 2. Nielsen, R. 2005. The Little Green Handbook: Seven trends shaping the future of our planet. New York, NY. Picador Press. 365 pp. P. 170, and https://www. dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-global-poverty (Accessed July 2018) and https://www.google.com/search?q=Number+of+people+in+the+world+w ho+live+on+less+than+US+%2.50+a+day (Accessed April 2019). 3. Friedman, T. L. 2016. Thank You for Being Late – an optimist guide to thriving in the age of accelerations. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. New  York. 486  pp. See p.292. 4. Defined by the World Bank as those who live on less than US$1.90 per day. 5. World population: 1981 – 4.54 billion, 2015 – 7.21 billion, 2018 – 7.63 4 7.7 in 2019. The number living in extreme poverty was about 2 billion in 1981 and less than 1 billion in 2018. Accessed 6. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview. December 2019. 7. For more information, see – http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview. Accessed March 2019. 8. Tull, Jethro. 1829. The horse-hoeing husbandry: or A treatise on the principles of tillage and vegetation, wherein is taught a method of introducing a sort of vineyard culture into the corn-fields, in order to increase their product and diminish the common expense, By Jethro Tull. To which is prefixed, an introduction, explanatory of some circumstances connected with history and division of the work; and containing an account of certain experiments of recent date. William Cobbett, Publisher, London. U.K. First published in 1731. 9. Wicker, E.R. 1957. A Note on Jethro Tull: Innovator or crank. Agric. History 31:46–48. 10. Smil, V. 2006. Transforming the Twentieth Century: Technical innovations and their consequences. Oxford Univ. Press. 358 pp. 11. http://www.epa.gov/Nutrient-policy-data/commercial-fertilizer-purchased. Accessed July 2019. 12. Wallace was the 11th US Secretary of Agriculture (1933–1940), the 33rd Vice President of the United States (1941–1945), and US Sec. of Commerce (1945–1946). 13. Hyde, J. 2002. Four Iowans who fed the world. http://hoover.archives.gov/ programs/4Iowans/Hyde-Culver.html. Accessed March 2018. 14. Kirkendall, R.S. 1997. Second thoughts on the agricultural revolution -Henry A.  Wallace in his last years. H.A.  Wallace Inst. for Alt. Agric., Greenbelt, MD. 28 pp. 15. A farm is defined as “any establishment from which $1000.00 or more of agricultural products were sold or would normally be sold during the year”. 16. h t t p : / / u s d a . m a n n l i b . c o r n e l l . e d u / u s d a / c u r r e n t / F a r m L a n d I n / FarmLandIn-02-16-2018.pdf. Accessed August 2018. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/NASS/SB991/sb991.txt.

46

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

17. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1_ Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf. Accessed February 2018. 18. https://www.ewg.org/agmag/2017/12/usda-confirms-subsidies-overwhelmingly-flow-wealthiest-farmers#.Wm3zNqinFPY. Accessed January 2018. 19. Economic research service and National agricultural statistics service, agricultural resource management survey. Data as of November 27, 2019. Accessed December 2019. 20. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Other_Analysis/index.asp. Accessed January 2008. 21. Krebs, A.V. 1992. The Corporate Reapers: The book of agribusiness. Washington, D.C. Essential Books. p 16. 22. U.S. census data (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB991/sb991.txt. Accessed January 2018. 23. The food sector is composed of farming employment (1.4%) in the United States; food service—eating and drinking places—(6%); food and beverage stores (1.7%); forestry, fishing, and related activities (0.5%); food beverage and tobacco manufacturing (1%); and textile apparel and leather manufacturing (0.2%). 24. These and related farm data are from the US Department of Agriculture economic research service (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-foodstatistics-charting-the-essentials/farming-and-farm-income/. Accessed June 2018). 25. Full-time labor on US farms has steadily declined. However, approximately 1.3 million hired farm workers are essential for many of US fruit and vegetable crops. About 600,000 are direct hire and more than 500,000 are the so-called support people. They are dominantly Hispanic, 50% are US citizens, and about 50% are unauthorized immigrants. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor. Accessed August 2019. 26. Malcolm, J. 1993. The farmer’s need for agrochemicals. Pages 3–9 in J. Gareth Jones, ed. Agriculture and the Environment. E. Horwood Pub. London, UK. 27. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2018/09/19/Farmers-struggle-to-legallyimport-workers-threatens-US-crops/3711537355230/. Accessed July 2019. http://nfwm.org/resources/farm-workers-immigration/. Accessed July 2019. 28. Watson, D. 2018 Pesticides and agriculture – Profit, politics and policy. Burleigh dodds science publishing, Cambridge, UK. 403 pp. 29. Clark, G.H. and J. Fletcher. 1923. Farm Weeds of Canada. 2nd ed. revised and enlarged by G.H. Clark pub in 1909. Reprinted by Canada Dept. of Agric. F.A, Acland, Ottawa, Canada. 30. Timmons, F.L. 1970. A history of weed control in the United States and Canada. Weed Sci. 18:294–307. Republished – Weed Sci 53:748–761. 2005. 31. Dunham, R.S. 1973. The Weed Story. Inst. of Agric. Univ. Of Minnesota. 86 pp. P. 16. 32. Pastac, I. 1937. Les colorants nitres et leurs applications particulieres. J. De al lutte chemique contre les ennemis das cultures. 38:4.

5  The Paradox

47

33. Wojick, J. 1989. The arguments of agriculture: A casebook in contemporary agricultural history. Purdue Univ. Press, West Lafayette, IN. P. 85. 34. Roy, A. 2001. The algebra of infinite justice. London, UK. Flamingo. See p. 79. 35. Willard, C.J. 1951. Where do we go from here? Weeds 1:9,12. 36. Zimdahl, R.L. 2010. A History of Weed Science in the United States. Elsevier Insights, London, UK. 207 pp. 37. Mann, C. 2011. The eyes have it. Smithsonian 42(7):86–89, 92–94, 96–98, 100–102, 1-4-106. 38. Bolley, H.L. 1908. Weeds and methods of eradication and weed control by means of chemical sprays. N. Dak. Agric. Coll. Exp. Stn. Bul. 80: 511–574. 39. Pokorny, R. 1941. Some chlorophenoxyacetic acids. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 63:1768. 40. Akamine, E.K. 1948. Plant growth regulators as selective herbicides. Hawaii Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. 26:1–43. 41. Zimmerman, P.W. and A.E. Hitchcock. 1942. Substituted phenoxy and benzoic acid growth substances and the relation of structure to physiological activity. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 12:321–343. 42. Peterson, G.E. 1967. The discovery and development of 2,4-D. Agric. History. 41:243–253. Troyer, J.R. 2001. In the beginning: The multiple discovery of the first hormone herbicides. Weed Sci. 49:290–297. 43. Kirby, C. 1980. The Hormone Weedkillers: A short history of their discovery and development. Brit. Crop Prot. Council Pub. Croyden, UK. 55 pp. 44. Peterson, G.E. 1967. The discovery and development of 2,4-D. Agric. History. 41:243–253. Troyer, J.R. 2001. In the beginning: The multiple discovery of the first hormone herbicides. Zimdahl, R.L. 2010. A History of Weed Science in the United States. Elsevier Insights, London, UK. 207 pp. 45. Hamner, C.L. and H.B.  Tukey. 1944. The herbicidal action of 2,4-­dichlorophenoxy acetic and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid on bindweed. Science 100:154–155. Hamner, C.L. and H.B. Tukey. 1944. Selective herbicidal action of midsummer and fall applications of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Bot. Gaz. 106:232–245. 46. King, L.J. 1966. Weeds of the World: Biology and control. Interscience Pub., Inc. NY. NY. 526 pp. See p. 285. 47. Perkins J.H. and N.C. Holochuck. 1993. Pesticides: Historical changes demand ethical choices. pp.  390–417  in D.  Pimentel and H.  Lehman (Eds.). The Pesticide Question: Environment, Economics, and Ethics. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY. 441 pp. 48. Gianessi, L.P. and M.B. Marcelli. 2000. Pesticide use in U. S. Crop production: 1997. Nat. Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, D. C. Gianessi, L.P. and C.S. Silvers 2000. Trends in crop pesticide use: Comparing 1992 and 1997. Nat. Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, D.C., 165 pp. 49. https://www.statista.com/statistics/311943/agrochemical-market-value-worldwide/. Accessed February 2020. 50. Hopkins, W.L. 1994. Global herbicide Directory. 1st Ed. Ag. Chem. Information Services. Indianapolis, IN. 181 pp.

48

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

51. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_ Use/#description Accessed February 2018 and August 2019. 52. https://www.apsnet.org/about/history/Documents/Herbicide_Company_ Geneaology.pdf. Accessed February 2018. 53. Anonymous. 1995. Common and chemical names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of America. Weed Sci. 43:328–336, Anonymous. 2004. Common and chemical names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of America. Weed Sci. 52:1054–1060, Anonymous. 2011. Common and chemical names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of America. Weed Sci. 58:611–618. 54. Milne, G.W.A. (Ed). 2004. Pesticides: An international guide to 1800 pest control chemicals. 2nd. Ed. Ashgate Publication, LTD.  Aldershot, Hampshire, UK, 609 pp. 55. Appleby, A.P. 2005. A history of weed control in the United States and Canada—A sequel. Weed Sci. 53:762–768. 56. Benbrook, C.M. 2012. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S.  – the first sixteen years. Environmental Sciences Europe 24:24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24, Jordan, L.H. 2006. Pesticide trade shows new market trends. Pp 28–29 in E. Assadourian (ed.) Vital Signs: The trends that are shaping our future. W.W. Norton & Co. New York, NY. 57. Lovins, A., L.H.  Lovins, and M.  Bender. 1984. Energy and agriculture. Pp 68–86 in W. Jackson (ed.) Meeting the Expectations of the Land. North Point Press, San Francisco, CA. 58. Lague, C. and M. Khelifi. 2001. Energy use and time requirements for different weeding strategies in grain corn. Canadian Biosystems Engineering 43:213–221. 59. Swanton, C.J., S.D.  Murphy, D.J.  Hume, and D.R.  Clements. 1996. Recent improvements in the energy efficiency of agriculture: Case studies from Ontario, Canada. Agricultural Systems 52:399–418. 60. Gianessi, L.P. and S. Sankula. 2003. The value of herbicides in U. S. crop production – Executive Summary. Nat. Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, Washington, D.C. 61. Gianessi, L.P. and N.P.  Reigner. 2007. The value of herbicides in U.S. crop production. Weed Technol. 21:559–566. 62. The concept of creative destruction was popularized by J.  Schumpeter, in, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942). It refers to the inevitably linked processes of accumulation (creation) and annihilation (destruction) of wealth under capitalism. It was first described by Marx and Engels (1848) in The Communist Manifesto. 63. Pimentel, D., J. Krummel, D. Gallahah, J. Hough, A. Merrill, I. Schreiner, et al. 1978. Benefits and costs of pesticides in U.S. food production. Biosci. 28:772–783. 64. Clements, D.R., S.F. Wiese, R. Brown, D.P. Stonehouse, D.J. Hume, and C.J Swanton. 1995. Energy analysis of tillage and herbicide inputs in alternative weed management systems. Agric., Ecosystems and Environ. 52:119–128.

5  The Paradox

49

65. Fischer, T., DE. Byerlee, and G. Edmeades. 2014. Crop yields in global food security – will yield increase continued to feed the world? Australian Center For International Agricultural Research. ASCIAR monograph number 158. 634 pp. 66. An externality is a cost that is not reflected in price, or more technically, a cost or benefit for which no market mechanism exists. In the accounting sense, it is a cost that a firm (a decision-maker) does not have to bear or a benefit that cannot be captured. From a self-interested view, an externality is a secondary cost or benefit that does not affect the decision-maker. 67. http://www.croplifeamerica.org/cost-of-crop-protection-innovation-increasesto-286-million-per-product/. Accessed October 2016. 68. Campe, R. E. Hollenbach, L. Kämmerer, J. Hendriks, H. W. Höffken, H. Kraus, et al. 2018. A new herbicidal site of action: Cinmethylin binds to acyl-ACP-­ thioesterase and inhibits plant fatty acid biosynthesis. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. Online. 69. Yan, Y., Q.  Liu, X.  Zang, S, Yuan, U.  Bat-Erdene, C.  Nguyen, et  al. 2018. Resistance-­gene-directed discovery of a natural product herbicide with a new mode of action. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038.s41586-018-0319-4. Accessed July 2018. 70. Ivany, J.A. 2001. Introduction. Pp. 3–4 in J.A. Ivany. Ed. Weed Management in Transition. Vol. 2. Topics in Canadian Weed Management Canadian Weed Sci. Soc. Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada. 71. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/1996pisp.htm. Accessed March 2016. 72. Hivistendahl, M. 2013. In rural Asia, locking up poisons to prevent suicides. Science 341:738–739. 73. United Nations General Assembly. 2017. Report of the special rapporteur on the right to food. Human Rights Council, 34th session, New York. 24 pp. 74. Goldman, L 2004. Childhood Pesticide Poisoning: Information for advocacy and action. United Nations Environment Programme. Châtelaine, Switzerland. 37 pp. 75. Switzer, C.M. 1957. The existence of 2,4-D resistant strains of wild carrot. In: the Proc. Northeastern Weed Control Conference. Vol.11, pp. 315–318. Whitehead, C. W., Switzer, C. M. 1957. The differential response of strains of wild carrot to 2,4-D and related herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci. 43:255–262. Hilton, H.  W. 1957. Herbicide tolerant strains of weeds. Hawaiian Sugar Planters Assoc. P. 69. Ann Rpt. 76. Weedscience.com/International survey of resistant weeds. Accessed April 2019. 77. Cutulle, M.A., G.R. Armel, D.A. Kopsell, H.P. Wilson, J.T. Brosnan, J.J. Vargas, T.E. Hines, and R.M. Koepke-Hill. 2018. Several pesticides influence the nutritional content of sweet corn. Agricultural and Food chemistry. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b95885. 78. See Science volume 341, August 16, 2013. 79. Borlaug, N. (2000). The green revolution revisited and the road ahead. Special 30th anniversary lecture. Norwegian Nobel Institute: Oslo.

50

3  Agriculture: A Brief History

80. Atreya, K., B.K.  Sitaula, F.H.  Johnson, R.M.  Bajracharya. 2011. Continuing issues in the limitations of pesticide use in developing countries . J. Agriculture and environmental ethics. 24:49–62. 81. Winner, L. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor – A search for limits in an age of high technology. The University of Chicago press, Chicago, IL. 200  pp. See p. 10. 82. Flegal K.M., D. Kruszon-Moran, D.C., C.D. Fryar, C.L. Ogden. 2016. Trends in obesity among adults in the United States, 2005 to 2014. Journal American Medical Association 315(21):2284–2291. 83. https://www.statista.com/statistics/202871/number-of-fatalities-by-terroristattacks-worldwide/. Accessed February 2018. 84. Harari,Y.N. 2017. Homo Deus  – a brief history of tomorrow. HarperCollins publishers. New York. 449 pp. 85. Gould, Stephen Jay. 2003. The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister’s Pox – Mending the gap between science and the humanities. Harmony books. Nevada City. CA. 274 pp. 86. Kirschenmann, F. 2016. Coping with the end of America’s abundance. The Leopold letter. 28(4):3. The Leopold Institute. Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 87. Worster, D. 2016. Shrinking The Earth  – The rise and decline of American abundance. Oxford University Press, UK 265 pp. 88. Otto, S.L. 2016. The war on science: who’s waging it, why it matters, what we can do about it. Milkweed editions, Minneapolis, MN. 514 pp. 89. Edwards, R. and M. Hannah. 2014. Focus on weed control. Plant physiology. 166: 1087 1089. 90. Reddy, K.N. and R.R. James. 2018. Introduction to the symposium on precision agriculture and weed science. Weed technology 32:1. 91. Young, S.L. 2018. Beyond precision weed control: A model for true integration. Weed technology. 32(1):7–10. 92. Fennimore, S.A. and L. Tourte. 2019. Regulatory burdens on development of automated weeding machines and herbicides are different. Outlooks on Pest Management – August. Pp147–151.

Chapter 4

World Population: Three Views

The dominant view within the agricultural community is that they have a moral obligation, a firm responsibility to meet the challenge of feeding a growing world population. It is a grand, urgent challenge which gives the entire agricultural community a worthy purpose. We, the human species, have always been confronted with two irreducible and interacting problems. The first is how to survive as biological creatures—how to acquire food dominated our attention for most of our time on earth. Human history can be traced back to about a million years BC. Agriculture can be traced back to about 25,000 BC. We have lived 40 times longer as hunters and gatherers than as tillers of the soil in a settled life (Durant p.  15).1 We were eagerly and greatly acquisitive because we had to be. Our food supply was uncertain, as it still is for many with whom we share the earth. The second problem we have and continue to work on is how to become fully human, how to realize the human potential. As our civilization developed, we also became concerned about a third problem: What is our moral responsibility to others? Are we obligated to do something to help others not as fortunate as we are, and if so, what should we do? The agricultural community has answered this question by striving to meet the challenge of feeding the world people. Most citizens of developed countries don’t think about or react to the fact that there is hunger in the world. For them, the grocery store is always full. The questions all should be thinking about are: What should we think about the fact that about 1 in 7 people in our world (about 820 million) are hungry every day? What should we do about world hunger? The ultimate evidence of our humanity may be our capacity to feel pain when others suffer and thereby recognize our responsibility. In the words of Khalil Gibran: Like a procession, you walk towards your God self. And when one of you falls down he falls for those behind him,

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. L. Zimdahl, Agricultural Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48935-9_4

51

52

4  World Population: Three Views a caution against the stumbling stone. Ay, and he falls for those ahead of him, who though faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone.

The United Nations established a target of zero hunger and zero malnutrition by 2030.2 However, a 2019 UN report3 shows that 820 million people worldwide did not have enough to eat in 2018, up from 811 million in 2017—the third year of increase. The view that dominates the agricultural communities moral obligation is that population—too many people—has created the challenge agriculture faces. I suggest that unexamined view dominates agriculture and the people of the world’s developed countries. The problem is too many people especially in the poor countries where population continues to grow. Is that really the cause of hunger in the world? Feeding a growing world population gives agriculture its worthy moral purpose. This chapter presents three contrasting views of the causes of population growth and asks if the undeniably growing population is a biological, social, or environmental problem or a combination of all three. It is reasonable to posit that most people who live in the world’s WEIRD nations (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic)4 take their food for granted, do not question its abundance, and are quite unaware of the vast agricultural enterprise that produces it or the fact that for most of recorded history, the struggle for food has been the main focus of human activity. On July 26, 2019, the US population was 329,319,641. The number of farmers in 2016 was 2,060,000, which means that less than 1% of US population farms and the number has been steadily decreasing. Since the 1997 USDA census of agriculture, the number of US farms has declined 7.8%. As noted in the previous chapter, a human right to food has been affirmed by several international organizations but has not been achieved. In 1980, a little more than 40% of the world’s population was extremely poor. It is indicative of agriculture’s progress that by 2013, 10.7% of the world’s 7.5 billion people (7.67 million) lived in extreme poverty (less than US $1.90/day). Half were in East Asia and the Pacific. More than 1.1 billion people have moved out of extreme poverty since 1990. Famine has ended in much of the world, but undernourishment and food emergencies (hunger) still exist in several countries. However, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN/FAO) projects that at least 2 billion people do not have enough to eat5— more than the 2019 UN estimate of 820 million. The total number of hungry/malnourished people in 16 countries in 2018 (Table  4.1) that represent the worst hunger problems was 56.6 million. Many who see this information respond by saying—of course they have hunger. Their governments are corrupt, they are not democratic—often dictatorships, the people are not well educated, women are oppressed, birth control is unavailable, and they are poor and undeveloped because they have too many people. Fourteen of the 16 nations are in Africa (Table  4.1) where underdevelopment, overpopulation, and poor agriculture are common. The real price of food reached its highest level since 1845 in 2008, the first year that a billion people worldwide went hungry.6 Thus, the agricultural realm is challenged to produce more food. But it’s not just a production problem. The FAO

1  Cassandra and Pollyanna

53

Table 4.1  World countries with undernourishment/hunger in 2018 Country Burundi Central African Republic Chad Comoros Eritrea Haiti Liberia Madagascar Niger Nigeria Sierra Leone Somalia South Sudan Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

2018 population (million) 10.9 4.7

Approximate number who are hungry (million) 7 2.5

13.7 0.83 5.2 11 4.8 3 2.2 19.6 7.7 15.6 3.5 28.2 11.2 15.8

2.4 0.8 3.3 5 3.8 1.5 1 1.8 3.9 2.9 1.3 11.6 6.7 1.1

Fox (2013) of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers7 concluded that 30–40% of the 4+ billion metric tons of food produced in the world every year never reaches a human stomach. In Southeast Asian countries, losses of rice can range from 37 to 80% of total production. Food is lost during or after harvest, and the WEIRD nations waste a lot of food. Without the production achievements of the 15 International Agricultural Research Centers, more people would starve. Many throw up their hands in despair, but in spite of the obstacles, world cereal production continues to increase, and the agricultural community tends to believe that the goal of feeding 10 billion, while elusive and distant, is achievable. There is no question that the world population is growing, albeit at a slower rate. It is not and never has grown exponentially. Population growth seems to inevitably lead to destruction of the environment, cities expand outward, ideologically bankrupt political systems survive, and the possibility of war threatens all. Thoughts about population growth can be characterized by two mythical figures: Cassandra and Pollyanna.

1  Cassandra and Pollyanna In Greek mythology, Cassandra was the daughter of Priam8 and his wife Hecuba. To win Cassandra’s love, Apollo, the god of music, poetry, prophecy, and medicine, gave her prophetic power. When his advances were thwarted, he decreed that no one would ever believe her. Her warnings of misfortune were disregarded as today’s

54

4  World Population: Three Views

warnings of the disadvantages of population growth are disregarded. Cassandra’s legacy is that we tend to ignore warnings of the dire consequences of our actions. Pollyanna is a heroine of novels written by the American author Eleanor H. Porter (1868–1920). Pollyanna’s view of the world was that everything is good and more would be better. Growth is good and more growth is better. A larger population is good because there will be more people able to solve the problems that growth creates. Pollyanna’s view is similar to the view of Mr. Micawber in Charles Dickens eighth novel—The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery. Wilkins Micawber was eternally optimistic, had a financial recipe for happiness, and always optimistically claimed that “Something will turn up.” His view is similar to the more modern character, Sonny (played by Dev Patel), the manager of the hotel in the 2011 British film—The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. Sonny’s view was “Everything will turn out all right in the end and, if it doesn’t, it’s not the end.” The two mythical characters—Pollyanna and Cassandra—offer opposing ways to consider a complex problem like population. Cassandra tells us there is a problem, but only the pessimists believe her. Pollyanna, an optimist, is sure something will turn up. The Rev. Malthus is pessimistic, Karl Marx tends to be optimistic, and a group of scholars from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology offer a scientific/balanced view but worry that we may be too late. The Malthusians—the Cassandra’s—continue to worry, while the Pollyannas, the agricultural people, know the problem is serious but they will meet the grand challenge of feeding a growing population. Malthus’ view is that it is a biological problem, which is diametrically opposed to Marx’s view that it is a social problem. A brief discussion of each view follows. Neither claims as Pollyanna does that a solution will just turn up.

2  Rev. T. R. Malthus The view of population growth, which persists in the developed world and dominates agriculture, is that of the Rev. T. R. Malthus9 (1766–1834) who saw it as a biological dilemma. He was a Cassandra and the intellectual progenitor of many who think about the negative implications of world population growth. In 1805 he was appointed Professor of History and Political Economy at the newly founded East India College of Haileybury College, in Hertfordshire, Great Britain. He also served as the curate of the local parish. In 1798 the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England, Malthus was 32 years old and published An Essay on the Principle of Population. As he looked around the slums of Liverpool, the nearest big city, what he saw was a struggle for existence. Death was the major equalizer. As population increased, tribal warfare increased due to limited resources, and people danced, prayed, or stood on their heads to control fertility—the unavoidable biological urge. He was convinced that all societies would run out of food because they would always have too many children.

2  Rev. T. R. Malthus

55

In Malthus’ view, the quantity of people is equal to Births – Deaths ± migration. We humans are close to or actually are the most abundant species of mammals on earth. Competitors may include the brown or Norway rat, one shrimp-like mammal (Euphausia superba Dana), and weaver ants (Oecophylla longinoda Latreille) whose biomass may rival humans. The competitors are small, we are big, and even if we are not the most abundant mammalian species, we are the ones with the greatest effect. As Jacob Bronowski (p. 19)10 told us—We are not figures in the landscape, we are shapers of the landscape. Friedman (p. 87)11 concurs that humans are now not just part of nature. We have become a force of nature that is changing the climate and the planet’s ecosystems at a pace never seen before. Both are concerned that our shaping of the landscape and its effect on climate and the planet’s ecosystem may aid or hinder agriculture’s quest to feed the world. TIME magazine asked in November 1999—Will Malthus Be Right? They framed the article as a debate between the Cassandra’s and the Pollyanna’s of the world. It is worthy of note that in 2019, Malthus has been dead 185 years, and yet every year we exhume and re-bury him. Malthus offered five basic propositions. 1 . Food is necessary for existence. 2. The sex drive is necessary and will continue. He was a priest, but he was not blind or ignorant and had three children. 3. The power of population is infinitely stronger than the power of the earth to produce food. The passion between the sexes is the most powerful force, and if nothing is done to control it, it will dominate. The human female can reproduce between about 15 and 49 years of age (34 years). If one allows for periods of infertility and pregnancy and excludes about 10% of the population which for several reasons cannot or chooses not to conceive, the average female could have 20 children. The record is 69. Madam Fedorova (1707–1782) of Shuya, Russia, the first wife of Feodor Vassilyev, (1725–1765) had 27 pregnancies over 40 years. She bore 69 children—16 pairs of twins, 7 sets of triplets, and 4 sets of quadruplets. Only two of the children did not survive. There were no single births. 4. Food production increases arithmetically (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.) and population geometrically (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc.) in the absence of any checks. 5. There is an inevitable gap due to the increase of population, and the slow or lack of growth in food production becomes intolerable. The gap leads to undesirable social consequences. People suffer hardships that will inevitably restrain population growth. Malthus thought there were positive and negative checks on population growth. The positive checks were disease—pestilence, famine, war, and death: the four horsemen of the apocalypse. He also saw a role for vice—evil or wicked conduct such as prostitution. However, there is no solution humans can create because nature/biology will control population growth. The negative or preventive checks include celibacy, moral restraint, delayed marriage, and other deterrents to sexual activity. His solution to the problem of

56

4  World Population: Three Views

population was just one thing. To prevent disaster, we had to implement preventive checks to control the passion between the sexes. Rev. Malthus started the debate and we owe him an intellectual debt. He could not recognize the place of contraception because the modern technology (the pill, condoms, IUDs, diaphragms) was unknown and he could not foresee the advances in technology that have occurred. He advocated celibacy, moral restraint, and delayed marriage because he knew about them. Secondly, he failed to appreciate or could not conceive of the possibility of increasing food production. He was not a prophet and could not even imagine such things as the green revolution in agriculture, fertilizer, pest control, and improved crop varieties. He also had difficulty separating scientific from ethical issues and gave us a moral lecture. The mercantilists said, as the capitalists now say, a growing population is good for business. Malthus acknowledged it might be but claimed it also inevitably led to a series of undesirable problems. Malthus emphasized our biological oneness. Succeeding schools of Malthusian thought are populated by Cassandras (agricultural people) who are pessimistic because of continued population growth and simultaneously optimistic that we must and will solve the problem of feeding people. The overwhelming thought of Malthusian origin is that unless we do something, population growth will overwhelm our resources and all will suffer. Civilization, after all, is only skin deep, and in the absence of controls, we will all behave like animals. Malthus thought humans were forever chained to cycles of birth and death because of the sex drive. Neo-Malthusian’s say birth control works, but it will take time and we are running out of time. Malthusians claim that what we should have done, but perhaps may no longer have time to do, is limit human population growth to keep population in harmony with the world’s resources. The goal should have been to achieve a stable population that was less than or consistent with the environment’s long-term carrying capacity. Instead what we have done is obey the biblical injunction (Genesis 1:28) to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” We have exploited the planet’s resources to fulfill the moral obligation of feeding an ever-growing population. Malthusians fear that this will lead to the ultimate collapse of human society. The agricultural evidence of environmental damage; depleted aquifers; fertilizer runoff to hypoxic zones across the world; pesticide contamination of food, soil, and water; and degraded soil is compelling support for the Malthusian case. The Cassandras conclude that agriculture, indeed, our global society is at risk, if agriculture continues to ignore its ethical dilemmas and strives to continue to feed a growing population regardless of the ecological cost, catastrophe is inevitable. It is quite reasonable to conclude that the Malthusians have been consistently pessimistic and wrong. As Ridley12 points out, they have repeatedly made the mistake of thinking of the earth’s resources as static, finite, and fixed. Many of the resources we now use (e.g., uranium, shale oil, atmospheric nitrogen) only became resources thanks to human ingenuity. Julian Simon13 and Bjørn Lomborg14 have shown that prosperity and population have grown together. World population is still growing albeit at a slower rate, and we use less farmland to grow more food. Malthus still demands thought, but we need to think carefully and not just accept the Malthusian hypothesis.

3  Karl Marx

57

3  Karl Marx The second intellectual progenitor is Karl Marx15 (1818–1883) who saw the problem as one of social determinism. The population problem has not been created by poor, uneducated people who produce too many children but by a social system, and it could be solved by modifications of that system. Marx view was not simply Pollyanna’s optimism or Mr. McCawber’s that something would turn up. It was optimistic in that once we recognized the origin of the problem we could solve it. It is possible, although doubtful, that Marx ever met Malthus although, similarly, his thoughts are still with us. He was, by any measure, brilliant, intolerant of the views of others, and difficult to live with. Marx was a socially concerned humanist who claimed that the primary determinant of population size is culture not biology. In his view, society was driven by the relationship between owners and workers. It was driven by economic forces, not solely by the means of production. Marx, Mr. Micawber, Sonny, and the Pollyannas of the world are convinced that everything will turn out all right if we address the problem correctly. He believed problems created by humans could be solved by humans. We impose the culture we have created on the biological realm. The ability to have children—fertility—is biologically determined. But the number of children one has—fecundity—is affected by one’s culture. Culture determines how close one is inclined to come to the biological potential. As pointed out above, during a woman’s childbearing years, few, if any, in the world’s developed countries now choose to have 20 children. For Marx, Population = Production / standard of living. Malthus had a biologically controlled, evolutionary theory. Marx had a culturally controlled, revolutionary theory. His theory was anti-Malthus because he emphasized the forces of production. In 1848, he published The Communist Manifesto with Friedrich Engels. He wrote the first volume of Das Kapital16 in London. The first volume was published in Berlin in 1867. It says, in part: Every special historic mode of production has its own special law of population, historically valid within its limits alone. An abstract law of population exists for plants and animals only so far as man has not interfered with them. (P. 399)

He believed that the motivating force of capitalism was exploitation of labor. In contrast to Malthus, Marx believed that there was no encompassing law of population. There are only laws for particular social circumstances. The four horsemen of the apocalypse are man-made and culturally determined. They are not biologically determined. The problem of population is that not enough is produced because capitalists control production, keep wages low, and create poor distribution. The problem is one of distribution. Capitalism is predatory on the poor—the workers. The problem is not too many people in relation to resources. The problem is too many workers for the number of jobs. In Marx’s view, it is not biology that controls; it is an oppressive economic system. Marx could not foresee unions, social security, or health care. In his view, predatory capitalists needed to have a surplus of labor to keep labor’s cost low. The capitalist has many times more than he needs, while the worker may be impoverished or starving.

58

4  World Population: Three Views

Marx wrote in the nineteenth century, and much of his thoughts are borne out by current data. We live in a world where about 1 billion people live on less than US $1.90/day and another 2 billion survive on less than US $2.50/day. The disturbing data go on: billion people (14% of the world’s population) live without electricity 640 million children in developing countries live without adequate shelter 780 million people lack access to clean drinking water. An estimated 2.5 billion people lack access to improved sanitation 3.1 million children die from malnutrition every year.17

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, nearly a billion people could not read or write. In early 2016, the 62 richest people in the world were worth as much as the poorest 3.6 billion. Their assets were greater than the entire bottom half of humankind. The ratio of Chief Executive Officer to worker compensation in the United States in 1965 was approximately 20. Now the average CEO takes home more than 300 times what the average worker receives. In the United States in 2018, the average CEO of 225 companies made 330 times more than the average worker who would have to work for 45 years to make what the average CEO makes in 1 year.18 The average pay of the 200 CEOs of the top 350 US firms in 2016 was $15.6 million, a gain of 16% over 2015. The average family earned a little over $58,000. The richest 10% of US families held 75% of US family wealth in 2017, and the lower 50% held about 1.1%. In 2017 the very wealthiest 1% had more than 28.6% of the country’s household income. In 2016, 50% of the household income in the United States was earned by the highest 20% of workers who made more than $100,000 per year. In the same year, the bottom 10% earned 1.06% of all income. The data illustrate the extent of income inequality in the United States, which has existed for several decades19 and seems to justify Marx’s view of a capitalist economy. We are not victims of biology; we are victims of the social/economic system, and we can change a system we have created. It’s not a biological struggle, it is a class struggle. Changing the social system and increasing income have made people, especially women, become more rational about birth, and they have had fewer children. People respond to social pressure more readily than they do to biological pressure. The conventional US view is Malthus first and then Marx. Some will suffer if population is controlled; it is inevitable, but then we can deal with the social problems Marx identified. It’s a quantitative problem: Birth  – Death ± migration = Overpopulation. The standard US conclusion is if we control the population, we will not need to change the social system and development will occur. The other view is Marx first, and then Malthus becomes unnecessary. First, the proletariat will revolt, and commodities necessary for survival will be distributed well. It’s a qualitative problem. Marx thought of history as a Social Darwinist1 survival of the fittest 1  Social Darwinism was popular in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The theory proposed that humans are subject to the same laws of natural selection as Charles Darwin had proposed for plants and animals. The people and cultures diminished and the strong grew. Life was a struggle for existence ruled by survival of the fittest.

4  Meadows and the Limits to Growth

59

dominated by conflict between different social classes. He thought change in control of the forces of production would eliminate the need for class struggle. He advocated a future in which social conflict would disappear in a classless society.

4  Meadows and the Limits to Growth The third view was first proposed in the 1972 book The Limits to Growth by Meadows et al.20 at MIT. It is essentially a neo-Malthusian view that combines the individual, the culture, and the environment. The view of population is based on the obvious premise that all of biology and culture take place in the environment—the biosphere. The environment affects culture and biology, and the reverse is also true. Therefore, utopia (the goal) is a function of biology, culture, and the environment. Problems occur when the biological unit becomes too large and exceeds environmental carrying capacity. Population is a function of standard of living and the environment. The Limits to Growth centers on limitations of the biosphere support system. Instead of feeding the world regardless of cost, we must begin to bring our population’s consumption into equilibrium with the planet’s capacity to maintain its ecological health.21 They recognized the value of preventive birth control. In the Meadows’ view, we can say Malthus or Marx first; it makes no difference because biology, culture, and environment are all unavoidably connected. We must limit the population and this will affect the social system. If we don’t limit the population, environmental/biospheric limitations will control the population. They argued that all rational humans want children of choice not children of chance and therefore biological urges must be controlled. Control will arise from a proper social ideology that creates policies that lead to a sustainable environment that recognizes that there are ecological/environmental limits to growth. Malthusian biological determinism has been the primary justification for agriculture’s responsibility—its mission. The Malthusian great law of necessity which holds that population will inevitably increase beyond the ability of the earth to provide sustenance has dominated agricultural thinking. The Danish economist, Ester Boserup’s work in India led to an alternative view of agricultural development.22 She proposed that with increasing populationpressure land use would evolve from extensive to intensive methods. Intensity would result in short fallow periods and multiple cropping. She further proposed that increasing population pressure was the dominant driving force behind increased agricultural productivity and technological innovation. But, given the Malthusian hypothesis, the inevitable gap would occur and the population would crash. Soby23 concurs that Malthus had several blind spots and Boserup’s model did not give appropriate consideration to political changes that would affect land distribution, property rights, and trade. He concluded that “both models were constructed within a limited geopolitical and historical context.” Boserup could not foresee all of the results of the industrial revolution and urbanization and the positive effects of technology on agriculture. The appropriate model for agriculture must consider current demographic, environmental, and geopolitical

60

4  World Population: Three Views

events. Agriculture must produce, and its practitioners must allow environmental/ ecological considerations to dominate the ever-expanding goal of increasing production. Food is what all people must have to stay alive. Between 2006 and 2008, average world food prices rose by 217%24 a boon for farmers in the developed world and a potential tragedy for the poor. The economist25 analysis sees this as a chance to narrow income disparities by weaning rich farmers from subsidies and helping small-­ scale ones. The ultimate goal is to make the world richer and fairer. Food is essential to human life; it is not simply a commodity that is traded on Wall Street.

Notes 1. Durant, W. 2001. Heroes of History – A brief history of civilization from ancient times the dawn of the modern age. Simon & Schuster, N. Y. 348 pp. 2. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/envision2030-goal2.html. Accessed July 2019. 3. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/15-07-2019-world-hunger-is-still-not-­ going-down-after-three-years-and-obesity-is-still-growing-un-report. Accessed July 2019. 4. Harari, Y. N. 2017. Homo Deus – A brief history of tomorrow. Harper Collins publishers New York. 449 pp. See p. 359. 5. It is worth noting that in December 2017, 42 million Americans used food stamps. “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs,” US Department of Agriculture, December 8, 2017. Accessed June 2018. 6. The Economist. 2007. The real price of cheap food. December 6. 3 pp. Also cited in Foroohar, R. 2016. Makers and takers: the rise of finance and the fall of American business. Crown Business. New York 388 pp. 7. Fox, T. Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Global Food Waste Not, Want Not. London. 35 pp. 8. Priam was the father of 50 sons and several daughters by various wives and concubines. 9. Malthus, T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population. J.  Johnson, London. Between 1798 and 1826 Malthus published six editions of his essay. 10. Bronowski, J. 1973. The Ascent of Man. Little, Brown and Company Boston/ Toronto. 448 pp. 11. Friedman, T. L. 2016. Thank You for Being Late – An optimist’s guide to thriving in the age of accelerations. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. 486 pp. 12. Ridley, M. 2015. Malthusianism. Pp 331–333 in. J. Brockman (Ed.) This idea must die. HarperPerennial, New York. 568 pp. 13. Simon, J.L. 1981. The Ultimate Resource. Princeton University Press. 415 pp. 14. Lomborg, B. 1998. The Skeptical Environmentalist – Measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge University Press. 515 pp.

4  Meadows and the Limits to Growth

61

15. Marx, K. 1867. Capital. Critique of political economy (aka Das Kapital). Verlag von Otto Meisner. Germany. 16. Marx, Karl, 1818–1883. Das Kapital, a Critique of Political Economy. Chicago: H. Regnery, 1959. 17. World Bank development indicators. 2017. Washington DC. https://data.worldbank.org/products/wdi. Accessed November 2018. 18. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/16/ceo-worker-pay-ratioamerica-­first-study. Accessed May 2018. 19. https://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/inequality-record-top1-percent-wealth/index.html. Accessed August 2018. 20. Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W.W. Behrens III. 1973. The Limits to Growth. A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books, New York. 205 pp. 21. Kirschenmann. F. 2008. Feeding the world, creating more problems? The Leopold letter 20(1). Spring. Pp. 5,7. 22. Boserup. E. 1966. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The economics of agrarian change under population pressure. Chicago, IL.  Aldine Publishing Co. 124 pp. 23. Soby, S. 2017. Thomas Malthus, Ester Boserup, in agricultural development models in the age of limits. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30:87–98. 24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_price_crisis. Accessed April 2018. 25. Economist. 2007. The end of cheap food. December 8.

Chapter 5

Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

Seeing the earth for the first time as a blue ball in endless space brings home just how stupid and small-minded we are. We’ve got one tiny planet, and all we can do is fight over it and poison it. There is nothing else we can live on for billions and billions of miles, and only a four-mile layer of the earth can support us. A million years of human history acted out in a microscopic four-mile wide belt—the same one that we’ve got to use for our future, assuming we’ve got one.1 Synthetic biology was the transistor of the twenty-first century. If the political realities in America made it increasingly unfeasible for entrepreneurs there to tinker with the building blocks of life. Every cluster of human cells was viewed as a baby in America. A quarter of the population wasn’t vaccinated. A majority of Americans didn’t believe in evolution. Social media-powered opinions carried more influence than peer-reviewed scientific research. Synthetic biology delivered—engineering yeasts, algae, and bacteria as the machinery of sustainable production. Growing and evolving integrated biofactory systems served as the foundry for new pharmaceuticals and CRISPR edited climate change-­resistant crops—like C4 photosynthesis rice—to feed the earth’s 10 billion people.2

Norman Borlaug3 cautioned “that agricultural scientists have a moral obligation to warn the political, educational, and religious leaders about the magnitude and seriousness of the arable land, food, population, and environmental problems that lie ahead.” Unless these problems “are addressed in a forthright manner future solutions will be more difficult to achieve.” Agricultural scientists pride themselves on the achievements of the green revolution, but they have not addressed the problems that concerned Borlaug. I do not accuse my colleagues of lacking ethical standards. They are all good people who recognize and adhere to the accepted ethical expectations of their society. Agricultural scientists share with all scientists the accepted standards of professional ethics: They don’t fabricate the data, they give proper credit, they are honest, they include results opposed to a particular hypothesis, plagiarism is not permitted, and conflicts of interest are disclosed. What is lacking is recognition of and discussion of the environmental and human problems caused by agricultural technology This chapter is an edited version of Zimdahl, R. L. 2018. Agriculture’s moral dilemmas and the need for Agroecology. Http://www.mdpi/.com/2073-4395/8/7/116/htm. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. L. Zimdahl, Agricultural Ethics - An Invitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48935-9_5

63

64

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

and discussion of the prevailing assumption of the sustainability of the present system. Having worked toward the obligation to feed a growing world population the agricultural community has essentially ignored the moral challenges to our collective future created by its technology. The rationale has been that the costs associated with pollution, environmental damage, and harm to human health were justified by the agricultural production benefits. Atreya et al.4 argue that the soil, water and air pollution, pest resistance and resurgence, biomagnification, and loss of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience caused by the use of pesticides were real, albeit unintentional, developmental problems. These are the kinds of problems Borlaug urged agricultural scientists to address. If these costs are accounted for, the undeniable benefits from the use of pesticides could be outweighed by the costs of pollution and human health effects. There are choices that arise in principle and practice in the course of technical and social transformation.5 Knowing all the technological ingredients of modern agriculture has done little to create an understanding of how they have affected the texture of modern life. It has carried the strong implication that those who know of changes in the technology and practice of agriculture and potential, suspected, or real effects on our environment and food are charged simply to endure them. Thompson6 noted the dominance of positivism as a philosophy of science within agricultural universities, I agree. It is the view that “agricultural scientists should confine their activity to the collection of empirical data and to the analysis of quantifiable relationships among the data.” Positivism claims that sustained, critical debate about the goals of agricultural science has been rare because such debate is in no sense part of the scientific process. It is not needed and may impede progress toward feeding a growing population. It is my view that agricultural scientists have accepted and seem to have welcomed the separation between the humanities and sciences. Gould7 might have proclaimed that the humanities and the agricultural sciences are separate, non-overlapping magisteria. The tools of one being radically unsuited to the other and the values and goals of one seeming to represent the antithesis of the other’s. The agricultural realm holds that increasing production is the sine qua non—the reason for its work. Does the world need more production? It certainly does in the developing countries. Global calorie production has kept pace with population, but more than 820 million people in the world (1 in 9), dominantly in Africa and Asia,8 have insufficient, poor quality food.9 Flegal et al.10 present data from the National Center for Health Statistics study that show about 1 in 3 US adults was overweight, more than 1 in 3 were obese, and 1 in 13 adults was extremely obese. It is not just a US or developed country problem. In 2000, 39% of adults age 18 years and over were overweight, and about 13% of the world’s population was obese.11 In 2010, obesity and related illnesses killed about three million people in the United States. One can argue that we may need a different diet, but we don’t need more food. Changing to healthy diets will require substantial dietary shifts that will vary by region and culture. The Lancet commission12 recommends more than a 50% reduction in global consumption of unhealthy foods such as red meat and sugar and more

1  The Environment

65

than a 100% increase in consumption of nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes. Coca-­ Cola and obesity pose a far deadlier threat to citizens in the developed world than Al Qaeda,13 (p. 18) and hunger persists in the world.

1  The Environment Environment was derived from French and means surrounding. The origin may also be traced to Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881) who translated the German word Ungebung in Goethe’s writing as surroundings. William Vogt (an ecologist and ornithologist) whose work was a major inspiration for the modern environmental movement was the first to use the word environment in its modern sense.14 “The sum total of soil, water, plants, and animals on which all humans depend.” The literal meaning of the environment is the aggregate of that which surrounds. Agriculture’s practitioners1 have seen the environment as a target for domination (thou shalt have dominion over and subdue—Genesis 1:28), a frontier awaiting our mastery. Aldo Leopold regarded the environment differently: “We abuse land because we see it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect”15 (p. xviii). Farming, as if the environment and nature did not matter, has been the model for much of the Western world’s agriculture for the past several decades.16 Technology has enable us to change the environment rather than having to adapt to it as all other creatures must (Bronowski endnote 20). Modern environmentalism really began with Rachel Carson’s17 publication of Silent Spring which was widely disparaged in the agricultural realm. Agricultural people have regarded the environment as the source of what we need to fulfill our obligation of feeding the world. Environmentalists see it as Leopold did—as troubled, and because we are dependent on it, we need to restore its health and its capacity for self-renewal. The environment is not a place we can endlessly extract from; it is something we belong to. Since the mid-twentieth century, the quality of science in the United States has been evaluated almost exclusively in terms of its ability to deliver technological innovations. This is particularly true in agriculture. Agricultural scientists have made great strides to improve crop production. However, when they claim credit for improving production and keeping the cost of food low, they must also accept society’s right to hold them responsible for problems agriculture’s practitioners have regarded as externalities.18 Internalizing the externalities will lead to understanding of how technological choices have important consequences for the practice of agriculture and the future of the environment. We have lived through several decades when the advance of technology and the horizon of human progress have seemed to be the same. Agriculturalists are eager to know and take advantage of the next

 Practitioners includes all in agriculture production, technological support, and research.

1

66

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

technological marvels on the horizon. But they need to ask what they have not asked—what has and what could go wrong and how should they respond when legitimate questions are asked? Agriculture, the essential human activity, is human’s most widespread interaction with the environment. All societies have an internal agricultural enterprise or depend on other countries to fulfill their needs. Humans, the world’s dominant species, are no longer just a part of nature; we have become a force of nature—“a force that is disturbing and changing the climate and our planet’s ecosystems at a pace and scope never seen before in human history”.19 We are crossing planetary boundaries and changing things that can never be rebuilt. “We cannot rebuild the Greenland ice sheet, the Amazon rain forest, or the Great Barrier reef. When the rhinos, the macaws, the orangutans are gone, no 3D printer will bring them back to life.” We are singular creatures in terms of our actual and potential environmental effects. We are not simply figures in the landscape.20 Because we have done many good things, many exult in the charge that we are shapers of the landscape. But because of how we have shaped the landscape and often harmed the environment, many people in the world’s developed and developing countries are understandably concerned about what we have wrought and what we may still do. Their concern includes and often focuses on how we practice agriculture. We Homo sapiens are the earth’s first truly free species, and we may be about to decommission natural selection—the force that made us what we are.21 E.O. Wilson (p. 277) strongly suggests that “Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to become.”22 The exploration must include careful examination and discussion of present and future agricultural practices including those that enable feeding the world and those that may prevent achieving that desirable goal.

2  Concerns About Agriculture There are many concerns about agriculture. They include thoughts about the sustainability of the modern agricultural enterprise, the use and role of pesticides, the place of biotechnology and genetic modification, and agriculture’s effects upon the environment. Because there are several good sources that offer extended discussion (several cited herein) of each of these issues, thorough discussion is beyond the scope of this book. Discussion of the present system of animal production is included but is minimal because of the extensive literature available. Those opposed suggest it presents an unacceptable level of risk to public health and damage to the environment, as well as unnecessary harm to animals.23

2  Concerns About Agriculture

67

2.1  Sustainability24 Everyone involved in agriculture is in favor of sustainability. However, there is little agreement on what is to be sustained. Within the agricultural community, to sustain usually means protecting the productive resource (e.g., soil, water, gene pools) and thereby assuring increased production. It is clear that sustaining the productive resource is important. It is not clear why that legitimate goal always outranks sustaining environmental quality. This debate goes to the heart of what agriculture ought to be. Agriculture has a major responsibility because it is so widespread and has the potential to care for or harm so much land. This is a different view from protecting and improving only the productive ability of land. Because of increasing urbanization, there will be less land to feed 9+ billion people. We create places for people to live and simultaneously destroy agricultural land, an essential environmental resource. Concrete is the land’s last use. Land is not simply a productive resource. It is the basis of life. Without the land there will be no agriculture. Therefore, land must be regarded as something more than other productive resources (e.g., fertilizer, machines, irrigation water, pesticides, and seed). To harm or destroy the land is to destroy something essential to life, and that certainly raises a moral question. The pursuit of agricultural sustainability is commonly viewed as mainly or wholly a technical problem that simply requires changing farming methods in developed and developing countries and adopting new, alternative technologies.25 Within the agricultural community, it is seen primarily in utilitarian terms, as a means of protecting the productive potential of the land (the soil), an essential resource, and satisfying market demands for healthy, tasty food. But achieving agricultural system sustainability will not be accomplished by tinkering at the fringes with a new technology. It will require rethinking about how we practice agriculture and pursuing sustainability as a challenging scientific, educational, political, and moral task. Sustainability was accepted as a desirable goal after the United Nations report Our Common Future (the Brundtland report)26 was published in 1987. It defined sustainable development as—“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The definition has been accepted even though exactly what should be sustained has not been defined. Agricultural sustainability is also defined in the 2010 Natural Research Council report27 which included four goals: 1 . Satisfy human food, feed, and fiber needs, and contribute to biofuel needs. 2. Enhance environmental quality and the resource base. 3. Sustain the economic viability of agriculture. 4. Enhance the quality of life for farmers, farm workers, and society as a whole. The report recognizes the multiple dimensions of sustainability and the need for systemic changes in farming systems. The Brundtland and National Research Council reports illustrate that sustainability is an imprecise concept that is often

68

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

misused.28 The term has often been co-opted, and the sustainable agriculture movement has not achieved what Liberty Hyde Bailey29 advocated way back in 1943: When once we set ourselves the pleasure of our dominion, reverently and hopefully, and assume all its responsibilities, we shall have a new hold on life. We shall put our dominion in the realm of morals. It is now in the realm of trade.

Bontz30 argued that “an economy based first on profit cannot stop itself from exhausting natural capital.” Berry31 said that the industrial economy reduces the value of a thing to its market price and argues that everything should be valued for what it is, not for what it may become. Bailey pointed out that: Most of our difficulty with the earth lies in the effort to do what perhaps ought not to be done. Not even all the land is fit to be farmed. A good part of agriculture is to learn how to adapt one’s work to nature…. To live in right relation with his natural conditions is one of the first lessons that a wise farmer or any other wise man learns.

In spite of the impressive achievements of modern/industrial agriculture, there is concern that current agricultural practices may threaten future global food security and will have negative effects on global food production.32 There is a pessimistic view that inevitable scientific progress has ended because science is out of control and may be making things worse. The total agricultural area has decreased since 2000, water use efficiency has increased, but available water sources (0.75% of the planet’s total water, almost all is which is subterranean) are already being used. “Human demand for freshwater is increasing by 64 billion cubic meters a year (1 cubic meter = 1,000 liters).”33 About 70%34 of available global water is consumed by agriculture, mostly for irrigation (a consumptive use) which uses about 2.8–3.5 trillion cubic meters of water each year, 40 + % of which comes from groundwater. In the United States, 60% of irrigated crop production depends on groundwater for supplemental or full supply.35 It is forecast that agriculture’s demand for water could rise to 8–10 cubic kilometers by 2050. That is almost three times more than36 total human use of freshwater today.37 Water use for agriculture peaked in 1980 and has decreased every year since due to improved irrigation system efficiency, in spite of an increasing number of acres irrigated.38 Fertilizer and pesticide use have increased (Table 5.1). Fertilizer use grew dramatically in the 1960s and 1970s and tended to plateau afterward. About half of the Table 5.1  US fertilizer and pesticide consumption39 Year 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2012

Fertilizer 1000 tons 7464 16,068 22,565 20,624 21,660 NA 20,854 23,244

Pesticides million pounds 196.5 350.4 630.0 525.0 531.2 516.1 1006 NA

% Insecticides 58 37 35 29 28 7 6 6

% Herbicides 18 35 44 44 48 51 61 61

2  Concerns About Agriculture

69

world’s food production relies on fertilizer which is expensive and is manufactured using fossil fuel in the form of natural gas. Corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat, and potatoes consumed 80% of the pesticides used on 21 crops. Meljboom and Brom40 advocate consideration of sustainability as a moral idea. First, it would explain the normative component of sustainability. Second, it would lead toward a definition of sustainability—in the sense of what it is that must be sustained. Finally, understanding sustainability as a moral idea would help to open it up for fundamental critical reflection without hampering it as a guide for practice. Discussion of sustainability—in the sense of what it is that must be sustained— should move toward “a sustainable evolutionary path, one not based on fear, technological growth, greed, and exploitation”.41 It might lead to thought about whether a sustainable agriculture only means producing enough food to feed a growing population or if there “should be a limit, a self-imposed restraint, on using the earth in the long-term interest of both humans and other living things” with whom we share the planet.42 Worster (p. 151) asserts that the miracle of technology has made the earth a more dangerous place to live—an uncommon view in the agricultural realm. Population growth and increasing living standards around the world will intensify the risk of a global food crisis in the coming decades. It is crucial that any sustainable agricultural system must increase crop yields and simultaneously decrease the environmental effects of agricultural intensification. Agriculture practitioners must discuss whether or not industrial agriculture is truly sustainable and if there are other models for agricultural practice that ought to be considered. Worster cites Ordway43 who concluded growth had acquired the power and scope of a new religion and it drives agricultural expansion (endnote 42, p. 147). Should there be limits to uses of agricultural technology that do not limit its real and potential benefits and recognize and deal with its real and potential harms?

2.2  Pesticides The world uses a vast array of synthetic organic chemicals to manage insects, weeds, fungi, and other organisms that sometimes just bother and other times may cause significant yield losses and harm to humans. Pesticides and other agricultural technology have made it possible to feed a growing human population and protect millions of people from malaria and other insect-borne diseases. Of the pesticides used in the world, 80% are used in agriculture: approximately 40% are herbicides— the front line of defense against weeds 44—33% insecticides, and 10% fungicides. Sales and use, especially of the herbicide glyphosate, have been expanding rapidly throughout the world, although the development of new modes of action has become rare.45 See Yan et al. (2018) (endnote 73 Chap. 3) for discovery of a new herbicide mode of action. There is no question that pesticides increase crop yields and may harm the environment, people, and other creatures. For example, there are 42% fewer species of

70

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

invertebrates in streams with severe pesticide contamination and 85% fewer new queens in bumblebee hives exposed to pesticides.46 Pesticides have been aggressively promoted and are generally accepted within the agricultural community as essential to maintaining yields and feeding a growing world population. There are also legitimate global human rights concerns because of their detrimental effects. The UN General Assembly47 report denies the claim that pesticides are necessary to feed the world. It regards them as a short-term, but not sustainable, solution that helps achieve adequate food and health for all. A conversation with any member of the general public not directly engaged in agriculture will quickly demonstrate that the dominant view is that synthetic, organic, chemical pesticides pose real threats to human health and the environment,48 are used excessively, are dangerous, are overused, and should not be present in food, soil, and water. It is also widely acknowledged, especially within the agricultural community, that they have made our lives easier and more enjoyable by reducing mosquito, ant, and cockroach populations. Modern pest management has been highly dependent on the science of pesticides.49 It is a sad fact that interdisciplinary study of Agroecology is in its infancy in United States. Agricultural scientists in other countries are far more advanced in studying alternative systems of weed management in the quest for sustainable agricultural systems.

2.3  Antibiotics There is great concern about the increasing incidence of poor performance of antibiotics for treatment of human diseases due to bacterial resistance. It is estimated that approximately 80% (a disputed number) of all antibiotics used in the United States are fed to farm animals, although there is disagreement about the quantity and patterns of antibiotic use.50 Their primary uses are for disease prevention and growth promotion. These very effective, necessary products originally developed to protect human health have become less and less useful as resistance to them has become more common due to widespread use in animal/poultry agriculture and overprescribing them for human problems. McKenna offered a view of how antibiotics created modern agriculture and changed the way we eat.51

2.4  Exploitation of and Cruelty to Migrant Labor John Steinbeck’s 1939 novel—The Grapes of Wrath—vividly described the migration of poor white folks from Oklahoma to California and how they were affected by dramatic changes in agriculture. Steinbeck first brought attention to the problems of migrant labor in agriculture, which still exists in the United States. Now between 2 and 3 million migrant laborers plant, cultivate, harvest, and pack fruits,

2  Concerns About Agriculture

71

vegetables, and nuts in the United States. They are invisible to most Americans and dominantly of Mexican/South American descent. Their treatment is characterized by racial/ethnic discrimination and xenophobic attitudes, but there is a continuing, quite reasonable, need for seasonal hand labor for many specialty crops. In spite of their importance to agricultural production, they face dangerous working conditions, poor pay, risk of pesticide contamination, and difficult living conditions.

2.5  Loss of Biodiversity There is a well-documented, continuing loss of ecological biodiversity, species, and genetic diversity. Between 0.01 and 0.1% of all known species become extinct every year. If the low estimate is correct, the earth is losing between 200 and 2000 species every year. If the high estimate is correct, the earth is losing between 10,000 and 100,000 species. For most people, the losses are invisible. The ecosystem services the species provide are unknown because there is no way the ecological and/or social cost is reflected in a market outcome. Agriculture, a technologically based, high-energy, and capital-intensive industrial system, can, but should not, neglect the ecological and social values that have no defined or obvious market-based cost. Kolbert52 proposed that the earth is undergoing a sixth extinction as result of global warming and man’s activities, including agriculture. Between 1.4 and 1.8 million species have been identified. No one knows how many more there may be. The low estimate is around 2 million different species on our planet. The high estimate is 100 million. It is important to try to learn what we don’t know. Because no one knows how many species the earth has, it is impossible to know how many are being lost. Scientists estimate that we are losing species at a rate 1000 to 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate: the rate that would occur if humans were not involved.

2.6  Animals There is increasing recognition of cruelty to and mistreatment of animals.53 The work of Peter Singer of Princeton University and Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University is exemplary. They and many others argue that all species of animals should be raised in appropriate conditions and be properly cared for. Animals used to be regarded as property and had no rights. Now we know that animals can suffer and therefore should not be mistreated. Rollin54 described five reasons for the development of social concern for animals: The replacement of husbandry based agriculture with industrial agriculture: Significant reports of animal suffering. The requirement for a new ethic to express social concern. The necessity of finding moral categories applicable to animals.

72

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas Developing legally encoded rights for animals.

Nevertheless some claim that industrial animal agriculture-factory farming is not cruel, inhumane, or otherwise degrading to animals.55 CAFOs—confined/concentrated animal feeding operations—are efficient ways to raise large quantities of milk, eggs, and meat. Air, water, and soil pollution from the huge quantities of waste they produce make disposal a problem. They emit ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane, and airborne particulates and are well-known as sources of environmental and olfactory pollution, particularly for people who live near them. They are also of concern because of how confined animals are treated. Although CAFOs are not the only cause, they contribute to the loss of small farms, rural communities, and the cultural values of rural America.56 Cloning technologies may offer a solution to world hunger while, at the same time, making dramatic changes in animal agriculture. Cloning may permit the creation of meat and other protein sources in a factory without animals. It might eliminate the morally questionable, very efficient CAFOs and the animal suffering they entail, eliminate pesticides and hormones that occur in meat, reduce environmental effects, and improve human nutrition. It will not be necessary to create whole animals. Only the desired parts of animal flesh could be produced, and all, billions of pounds, could be derived from the genes of a single animal. The first lab-grown hamburger, dubbed Schmeat, was created in 2013 in the Netherlands. The research yielded a hamburger that cost more than $300,000, but it was the first step in achieving the morally acceptable goal of cloning. The use of genetic engineering and intelligent design could lead to elimination of many forms of animal mistreatment. The economist reported57 that genetic engineering can now be used to grow leather without any need to raise and kill animals.

2.7  Biotechnology and GMOs There is an omnipresent concern in world societies about biotechnology and genetic modification. Twenty six of the world’s countries now grow genetically modified crops. GMOs have received particular attention in the European Union. In 2015 a majority of the European Union nations blocked the cultivation of GMO crops, and Russia banned cultivation and imports.58 However, it is interesting to note that 16 EU nations that prohibit cultivation allow imports of genetically modified crops for animal feed. Commercial sale of genetically modified foods in the United States began in 1994, when Calgene marketed its unsuccessful Flavr Savr delayed-­ripening tomato. At the end of 2017, there were ten genetically modified agricultural crops (GMOs) commercially available in the United States. The ten crops available in the United States (40% of world acreage), the year they were first available, the specific incorporated genetic trait(s), and their uses follow (Table 5.2). GM crops are grown on approximately 3.7% of the world’s total agricultural land and 13% of arable land. The United States was the first adopter of GM crops and is

2  Concerns About Agriculture

73

Table 5.2  Genetically modified crops available in the United States Year Incorporated genetic Crop released trait Squash 1995 Virus resistance Soybean 1995 Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance

Cotton

1996

Corn

1996

Insect resistance, herbicide tolerance Insect resistance, herbicide, and drought tolerance

Papaya Canola Sugar beets Alfalfa Potato

1997 1999 2006

Disease resistance Herbicide tolerance Herbicide tolerance

2006 2016

Apple

2017

Herbicide tolerance Reduced bruising and black spot, non-­ browning, low acrylamide, and blight resistance Non-browning

Uses Food Livestock and poultry feed, aquaculture, soybean oil (vegetable oil), high oleic acid (monounsaturated fatty acid), biodiesel fuel, soymilk, soy sauce, tofu, lecithin, pet food, adhesives and building materials, printing ink, other industrial uses Fiber, animal feed, cottonseed oil Livestock and poultry feed, fuel ethanol, high-fructose corn syrup and other sweeteners, corn oil, starch, cereal and other food ingredients, alcohol, industrial uses Table fruit Cooking oil, animal feed Sugar, animal feed Animal feed Food

Food

still the largest cultivator—180.1 million acres—of the global area (473.5 million acres) under GM crops. In 2016 Brazil grew 27% (121.3 million acres) and Argentina 13%. Together, these top three countries grow over three quarters—81%— of the world’s GM crops.59 Their expanding use has led to continuing public concern about the role, purpose, and justification for genetically modified organisms in agriculture. Carnation, chicory, flax, melon, petunia, plum, poplar, red beets, rice, sweet pepper, tomato, and tobacco have also been genetically modified but have not been approved for use in the United States. The first genetically modified crop planted in the United States was canola in 1998. The acreage of GMO crops has increased dramatically since then. A 2018 report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications60 shows that the global biotech crop area increased 3% (4.7 million hectares–11.6 million acres) in 2017. The report suggests this is due primarily to greater profitability stemming from higher commodity prices, increased market demand both domestically and internationally, and the presence of available seed technologies. Nineteen of the world’s developing countries have increased their biotech crop area.

74

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

There is no requirement in the United States to indicate the presence of genetically modified ingredients on food labels or in restaurants. No one is required to report when genetically modified seeds are used in food production. Agricultural scientists have been using conventional plant breeding techniques for decades to create plants that have higher yield, faster growth, insect and disease resistance, larger seeds, and improved nutritional quality and are more responsive to fertilizer. However, an intense debate continues between those in favor of conventional plant breeding versus those who favor genetic engineering. Both sides are convinced they are right and the others are wrong, at least partially misinformed, and don’t understand. Partisans on both sides are convinced they are in an all-or-­ nothing battle characterized by the proponents, who think of themselves as the good guys versus the misinformed guys.61 There does not seem to be a middle ground, which, of course, there always is. The advocates of genetic engineering, the good guys, foresee increased yields, reduced environmental effects, and improved farmer health and higher economic returns for farmers who adopt biotechnology (see ISAAA report endnote 58). They offer what Burkhardt62 calls a future benefits argument—a utilitarian ethical argument that justifies continued research and technological development. These good guys see the benefit of continued technological fixes63 as solutions to agriculture’s challenge of feeding a growing population. A report from PG Economics highlights 20 years of economic and environmental benefits from using GMO crops.64 In contrast, Altieri65 regards genetic engineering as another technological fix which will not solve agriculture’s environmental problems. His view is supported by Goldberg et al.66 who regard herbicide-tolerant crops as a threat to sustainable agriculture and by Tokar67 who regards all of genetic engineering as a challenge to life itself. Denison68 claims the “likely near-term benefits of biotechnology have been exaggerated” and biotechnology is unlikely to deliver soon on key promises such as crops that yield more grain and use less water. GM crops have not improved photosynthetic efficiency or crop water use. Their views are contrasted by Hansson and Joelsson69 who see biotechnology as a forceful tool to solve environmental problems and have positive effects on human health by diminishing the need for damaging practices such as pesticides, fertilizer, and tillage and reducing the land needed for agriculture. But then one encounters Sexton et al.70 who claim “widespread adoption of genetic engineering in agriculture would have only negative effects”. Myhr71 speaks of the broad range of views among scientists and other stakeholders on genetic engineering and how GMOs should be regulated. A 2019 report72 suggested rigorous regulatory oversight has impeded consumer acceptance. It contributed to the notion that genetically modified crops are risky, whereas the report suggests that the risks are similar to those of traditional crops. The authors encouraged research to see if risk-disproportionate regulation leads to the validation of public fears and distrust about what they regard as a safe technology. The precautionary principle has become a contentious issue with support from the other good guys who doubt the benefits of GMOs and encounter stout resistance from their advocates.

2  Concerns About Agriculture

75

The other good guys (the doubters) question the benefits and emphasize the risks, which they claim are largely unknown. While questioning the economic arguments, they tend to emphasize issues of social justice which occur because of dysfunctional institutions or regulation73 and not simply because we don’t produce enough food. In their view, these risky crops will not save the world; they will trigger doomsday. The risks are to human health and the environment. They repeat similar past claims made about pesticides—the proponents think they know more than they do and they ignore and effectively dismiss the unknowns, which may be the real problem. A thorough review of more than 400 articles found limited empirical research on the socio-economic effects of GM crops. There was an overall tendency to frame the research on invalid theoretical assumptions or to over-extrapolate small-scale and short-term specific results to generalized conclusions. The authors found a lack of empirical evidence and comprehensive research on social and economic effects of GM crops for use in decision-making.74 The common concerns/questions among these other good guys emphasize safety. We must eat, and our diets and health should not be put at risk because we must eat. It is hoped that these brief comments illustrate the complexity of the issues. It is not the purpose of this book to present and review all or even a major portion of the arguments in support of and against GMOs. The proponents have faith that limitless technological progress will finally solve the problems of limitless contamination. The good guys (Saurez – endnote 2) seem to be quite convinced, as the objectors, the other good guys, are not, that science will solve the problems. Mampuys and Brom75 deny this and claim that “it is likely that there will be a permanent difference in …. opinion that cannot be solved with more data or new facts.” The proponents do not know of or neglect the thought in the epigraph to this book by Rousseau76 “Nature never deceives us; we deceive ourselves.” Berry77 (p. 211) reminds us, as many of those who look forward to the coming dominance of biotechnology do not, that nature “requires respect, a kind of reverence, and deference before Nature’s ultimately mysterious forms and processes.” I suggest this view is correct and reflects the past optimism about human and environmental safety, which was loudly and consistently proclaimed by the agrochemical industry and which was ultimately proven to be, if not wrong, at least highly questionable. Mampuys and Brom claim the current strategy is unlikely to solve the problems and the focus should shift toward “managing permanent different viewpoints and providing a platform for a broader conversation on agriculture and food production.” That must include a discussion of the ethics of agricultural practice. The debate and the tensions between the two groups will not be easily reconciled because they rely on different knowledge and verification claims.78 In the agricultural world, realists run agricultural research, grow crops, and feed the world. They are ruled by cold consideration of their own interests. They live in a world where one must produce profitably or perish. Realists have resisted entering and addressing the moral realm to justify what they do. They are not concerned with achieving some reconciliation of interests but with the very real balance of power, which they hope to maintain. Critics claim that GMOs may be useful as a technological means

76

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

to increase yield and crop quality but they claim the proponents ignore the fact that stable and efficient institutions are required to provide the benefits. Proponents claim that it is not unjust to use GMOs to alleviate hunger and malnutrition and achieve the goal of feeding an expanding population, 79 a reasonable argument that is weakened because more than half of the general public (57%) say that GM foods are generally unsafe to eat. On the other hand, a majority (88%) of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science say that GM foods are generally safe.80 It is an enduring gap between the public and scientists and depicts a scientific and moral challenge for the agricultural community. Many will recall the assurances from leading industrialists in the 1950s and 1960s that DDT, asbestos, tobacco, toxic waste dumps (e.g., Love Canal), and cars without seat belts were all safe81 (p. 64). The following comment of James Davidson (Emeritus VP for Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Florida) illustrates the agricultural community’s unwillingness to recognize and respond to past errors82 and lends support to the other good guys who are sure biotechnology and genetic engineering portend other problems which agriculture’s practitioners will have to recognize and for which they will eventually have to apologize. With the publication of Rachel Carson’s book—Silent Spring—we, in the agricultural community, loudly and in unison stated that pesticides did not contaminate the environment; we now admit that they do. When confronted with the presence of nitrates in groundwater, we responded that it was not possible for nitrates from commercial fertilizer to reach groundwater in excess of ten parts per million under normal productive agricultural systems—we now admit they do. When questioned about the presence of pesticides in food and food quality, we reassured the public that if the pesticide was applied in compliance with the label, agricultural products would be free of pesticides—we now admit they’re not.

The other good guys know that agricultural technology has failed to live up to its promises, mistakes have been made and reluctantly acknowledged, and science has marched on. They emphasize the too frequent occurrence of problems in the agroindustrial system that reduce the complexity of environmental systems. They argue that the proponents of agricultural biotechnology are what Berry83 identifies as evangelists who are promoting worldwide adoption of an agricultural system that is “unsustainable by every measure.” Public discussions quickly become highly convoluted and often do not resolve much.84 They include discussions of safety for humans, animals, and the environment and minimal or no focus on discussions on whether or not humans should be manipulating any genomes and what should be considered when they do. Research to date shows that cultivating and eating GMOs have not posed any specific health or environmental risks and offer benefits to farmers in developed and developing countries,85 a conclusion shared by the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology.86 The Society of Toxicology, a professional association of more than 8200 scientists worldwide, issued a statement in 201787 that affirmed the safety of genetically engineered crops for human and animal health. They claim that there has been no verifiable evidence of the potential for adverse health effects in the past 20 years and that intuitions and emotions make us highly susceptible to the “fatal attraction” of negative representations of GMOs. “Cognitive predispositions can

3 CRISPR

77

result in deeply ingrained biases that, if not dealt with by education, lead to persistent resistance to contra-intuitive scientific theories.”88 People’s comprehension of genetic modification is affected because they interpret DNA as the essence of an organism. Many people believe that there are certain aspects of nature with which we should not meddle. Those who object to the use and development of GMOs have emphasized the unknown hazards to human health and the environment. Another less frequently mentioned objection concerns the ownership of seeds and the distribution of their economic benefit.89 Four multinational agrochemical firms now control over 60% of global agricultural seed sales and over 60% of agricultural pesticides sales. More than 90% of the 178 million acres of corn and soybeans planted in 2018  in the United States were sown with genetically modified seeds controlled by the major agribusiness firms.90 The argument is that ownership of genetically modified seeds comes with the responsibility to do no harm. That entails moral responsibility and asks if and how the responsibility for the potential hazards of genetically modified seeds is transferred? The owner can be the developer, holder of the patent, the seller, the buyer, and/or the ultimate user. The point is that ownership entails rights and responsibilities. Ownership involves benefitting from the seeds and being responsible for them. The developers and sellers of agricultural seeds have effectively transferred the rights, legal duties, and obligations but have done too little to transfer forward-­ looking moral responsibility. Achieving global distributive justice is a proper goal for developers of GMO technology.

3  CRISPR Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats is a gene-editing technique discovered in 2012. It has become a source of strength in biotechnology with wide application in agriculture and is of concern to the other good guys. It was developed from a bacterial defense system that cuts the DNA of invading viruses and permits genetic material to be added easily and precisely. It works best in cells that are replicating and have the correct molecular structure in place to incorporate the DNA being delivered. It acts by cutting the DNA strands so new material can be inserted. The procedure can have undesirable effects, and caution is required for use with the human genome where damage can occur.91 Another concern is that it is not good at correcting point mutations which are errors that occur in only one or two of the genetic letters (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine) in a gene’s DNA sequence.92 The CRISPR technology permits plant breeders to introduce genetic modifications knowing what it will do, where it will end up in the genome, and how it should affect the recipient and environment. The process permits precision. The technique allows turning off harmful genes with minimal or no disruption to the genome. CRISPR has and will continue to affect agriculture’s crops and probably most of the things we eat.

78

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

Hundreds of millions of people in Africa and Asia lack sufficient vitamin A, a half-million children go blind each year from vitamin A deficiency, and millions more contract other diseases. About seven ounces of golden rice (a GMO) would provide 100% of a child’s vitamin A requirement. In 2001 the European commission released several studies that concluded that GMOs have “not shown any new risk to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding.” It is possible that golden rice, more precise technology, and greater regulatory scrutiny may lead to greater public acceptance of their safety relative to conventional plants and foods. It was approved in 2018 in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. The Philippines approved it in 2019. Discussion and research on the future of biotechnology/GMOs and cloning in agriculture go on in the scientific realm, while concern about the morality of it all continues in society. An important debate concerns use of the herbicide glyphosate (Round-Up  – Monsanto™, now Bayer AG). A Swiss chemist, Dr. Henri Martin, working for a pharmaceutical company discovered glyphosate in 1950.93 Because no pharmaceutical applications were identified, the molecule was sold to other companies that tested for a number of possible uses. John Franz of Monsanto identified the herbicidal activity in 1970 and the formulated product—Roundup™ was first sold by Monsanto in 1974. It quickly became and remains the most widely used herbicide worldwide. It is one of the most common herbicides for residential use in the United States. There are more than 750 products containing glyphosate available in the US market. It is approved for use in more than 130 countries where it is sold under different trade names by several companies. Its discovery and release were as revolutionary for weed science as the 1940s discovery of 2,4-D. Glyphosate, the N-phosphonomethyl derivative of the essential amino acid glycine, is a nonselective, foliar herbicide with limited to no soil activity because of rapid, nearly complete adsorption. It is the only available herbicide that inhibits 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase, a key enzyme in the shikimic acid pathway, which is involved in the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan. These are essential in plants as precursors for cell wall formation, defense against pathogens and insects, and production of hormones.94 EPSP is not found in animals. Glyphosate has very low mammalian toxicity. Its nonselectivity means that it will affect, if not kill, most, but not all, green plants.95 Transgenic crops resistant to glyphosate have been created and marketed. In February 2020, 48 weed species (24 dicots and 24 monocots) were reported to be resistant to glyphosate in 29 countries and in 38 US states.96 In 2006, glyphosate resistance occurred in only 15 US states. Glyphosate has been accused of being an omnipresent carcinogen that harms people.97 Gillam’s polemic describes a view of the hazards of herbicides and the influence of Monsanto, which, in her view, has put corporate interests ahead of public safety. In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization, in a still disputed report, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. Many of the world’s regulatory agencies have concluded that glyphosate-based herbicides are not likely to be carcinogenic. Nevertheless, Austria voted to ban the herbicide on January 1, 2020.

3 CRISPR

79

A 2018 court verdict awarded $78 million in damages to a plaintiff who had terminal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that he claimed (the court agreed) was caused by glyphosate. If the decision is upheld on appeal, it will affect discussion of transgenic crops in agriculture and glyphosate’s agricultural future. The herbicides sales have been resistant to lawsuits.98 Others have leaped to the herbicide’s defense. Andreotti et al.99 in a large study among agricultural workers and families in Iowa and North Carolina reported no significant association between herbicide use and cancer risk or total lymphohematopoietic cancers including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma. In contrast, Brookes et al.100 claim that glyphosate belongs in category 2A as a probably carcinogen for humans. If Gillam’s claim is accepted, Brookes et  al. argue that there would be an annual worldwide loss of global farm income of $6.7 billion in reduced production of soybean, corn, and canola. There would be a net increase in use of less benign herbicides and additional carbon emissions arising from increased fuel usage for cultivation and decreased soil carbon sequestration equal to adding 11.8 million cars worldwide. The claim that GM crops will feed growing numbers of people in the third world has great moral appeal. It is responsible, even altruistic. But the claim is deeply misleading because it is based on the incorrect but popular assumption that we don’t produce enough food to feed starving people. People are hungry for many reasons including lack of money to buy food and no access to land to grow food, and they often live in a country where the government does not provide adequate help. The dominant GM crops in the United States are corn and soybeans. More than 90% of the soybeans and about 40% of the corn produced are not consumed directly by humans but by livestock. Converting plants into animal protein is a singularly inefficient means of supplying people with protein.

3.1  Mining Water The typical US home uses about 100 gallons of water each day, but when the water that grows our food and makes our clothing is considered, daily use is closer to 5000 gallons. More than 95% of worldwide water use occurs outside homes. About 40%101 of total diversion of available global water is consumed by the global agricultural sector, which, as mentioned above, uses about 2.5 trillion cubic meters of water each year, 40 + % of which comes from groundwater. Water use for agriculture peaked in 1980 and has decreased every year since due to improved irrigation system efficiency in spite of an increasing number of acres irrigated.102 In Colorado, 13.5 million gallons/day were used in irrigated agriculture in 2005; 81% was from surface water.103 Irrigated agriculture used 155 billion gallons/day equal to 61% of all freshwater uses in the United States.104 World Watch magazine reported that it would take 2.5 billion gallons of water to support 4.7 billion people the UN daily minimum, which happens to be the same amount of water used by the world’s golf courses.105

80

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

3.2  The Environment Some claim that agriculture encroaches on and harms the natural environment.106 Over the last 200  years, an estimated 30% of US farmland has been abandoned because of erosion, salinization, and waterlogging. Since the 1960s, one third of the world’s arable land has been lost to erosion. Some US crop land loses soil at an average rate of 5 tons/acre/year from water and wind erosion.107 The Amazon River basin contains 40% of the world’s tropical forests and accounts for 10–15% of the biodiversity on earth. Since the 1970s, nearly 800,000 km2 (308,800 m2) of Brazil’s Amazon forests have been lost to logging, farming, mining, roads, dams, and other forms of what is often called development. Many scientists are concerned that if tree loss passed a certain threshold, deforestation would start to feed on itself.108

3.3  Bioenergy Production of bioenergy from plants especially sugarcane and corn has expanded with significant political support. Expansion of biofuel production will inevitably limit land available for food production, may lead to deforestation, changes in land use, and will increase greenhouse gas emissions.109 Large-scale conversion of cropland, grassland, and natural ecosystems to production of biofuels will have detrimental social and ecological consequences.110 There is clearly a conflict between biofuels and global food security. Food security in developing countries could decline in the face of staple food price increases. Acquisition of large land holdings for production of biofuels will displace small farmers, and there will be competition with wild and domestic animals for grazing land.

4  Concluding Comment Rollin111 suggests that “uncertainty about ethics has been a major factor in societal rejection of biotechnology” and other scientific developments. The general society has sought assurance of safety from the scientific realm, which has not provided an adequate response to the ethical issues raised by biotechnology. Agricultural scientists have essentially said—Trust us, we know what we are doing. Rollin acknowledges the prevailing illiteracy about science among the general population which when combined with the dominance of positivism in the agricultural community has allowed ethical discussion to be avoided or stifled by those who hold power and want to maintain it. In Stephen Hawking’s words, scientists are “determined to engage fully with the study of science – so that we can go on to fulfill our potential and create a better world for the whole human race” (p.  194).112 For example, Chinese scientists have edited wheat’s genome to help control weeds.113 US

4  Concluding Comment

81

Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service scientists have developed a genetically modified shortcut to boost plant growth by 40%. Hawking also cautions us that we are “in a race between the power of our technology and the wisdom with which we use it” (p. 195). Ethicists and the agricultural community need to address these agricultural and societal concerns—agriculture’s ethical dilemmas. Within the agricultural community, it is regularly asserted that improved technology will address and relieve society’s concerns. The technological optimists have been sustained by the belief that whatever was created in the sphere of material/instrumental culture would be compatible with freedom, democracy, and social justice.114 Now they are reluctantly having to admit they have been too optimistic if not wrong. Some optimism is warranted because improved technology has, without question, solved problems and increased food production. In the early 1970s, about one of every four people in the world was undernourished and regularly hungry. Now it’s about one in ten, which is still too many.115 What is often ignored is that the technology that made increased production possible simultaneously created many of the agricultural and environmental problems the public is concerned about. If ignored, as they have been by the agricultural community, these problems will affect the agricultural enterprise and all the rest of us. Agricultural people must learn to understand, discuss, and evaluate moral arguments in order to develop appropriate socially and agriculturally acceptable solutions rather than simply regarding them as undeserved criticism and dismissing them. Within the mainstream agricultural community feeding, the 9+ billion is often cited as the primary, if not the only, value that justifies technological innovation. The social, environmental, and economic costs of developed countries capital, energy, and chemically dependent agricultural system and the challenge of sustaining the environment, small rural communities, and other species are recognized as important, but the necessity of increasing production trumps other reasonable goals. Negative effects are regarded as the price of progress, an assumption worthy of examination and discussion. We have lived by the assumption that what was good for us would be good for the for the world…. We have been wrong…. For I do not doubt that it is only on the condition of humility and reverence before the world that our species will be able to remain in it116 (p. 20).

There are very few natural ecosystems where species composition is independent of human involvement. One might be tempted to ask if the essential ethical concern of environmental ethics is protecting ecosystems from agriculture. Agriculture is the essential human activity, and it has unavoidable, frequently negative, environmental effects. The world now produces enough food to feed everyone a minimally adequate daily diet,117 an impressive agricultural achievement. Feeding the 9+ billion is undeniably a production problem, but it is also a poverty, distribution, infrastructure, and environmental problem. Western, developed country agriculture is a productive marvel that is envied by societies where hunger rather than abundance dominates.

82

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

Science and technology have created steady yield increases through development of higher-yielding cultivars of several crops, synthetic fertilizers, better soil management, mechanization, more efficient water utilization, and improved pest control. Agricultural producers and those who support them with technology have been seduced into thinking that as long as they increased food availability, they were exempt from the constant process of negotiating the moral bargain that is a foundation of modern democracies.118 It is becoming quite obvious to anyone who listens to, reads, or watches the news that citizens of democratic societies are becoming more reluctant to entrust their water, their diets, and their natural resources blindly into the hands of farmers, agribusiness firms, and agricultural scientists. Within the dominant agricultural community, most agricultural practitioners assume, without careful examination, that all of agriculture is morally correct because it is an unquestionable moral good to feed people. They acknowledge that there are technological problems but do not recognize or fail to acknowledge the ethical problems. This is illustrative of the claim that those who presume they know the truth do not look for it. Ethicists and agricultural practitioners must participate in a dialog that leads to social consensus about risks. Agricultural technology has always exposed people to risk. In the past most of the risk was borne by the users of the technology. Now there is widespread concern that the risks and short- and long-­ term consequences of agricultural technology are involuntarily borne by others. Agriculturalists must begin to contribute the time and resources needed to understand their position and those of their fellow citizens. For most non-agricultural segments of society, these are not new demands. For agriculture they are. Agriculturalists have been so certain of the moral correctness of their pursuit of increased production that they failed to listen to and understand the arguments of other interest groups (e.g., environmental groups, organic practitioners, consumers). Agriculturalists have not articulated any value position other than the value of production, which, in their view, obviously ought to retain its primacy. As mentioned in the first paragraph of the opening chapter of this book, the agricultural community has adopted, without careful thought, what Merton119 called “the collective arrogance….of his own herd.” The challenge of recognizing and achieving agriculture’s production, environmental, and social goals is that they involve describing and clarifying values. It is generally not recognized in agricultural science that values are not external to the science and technology but its basis. The agricultural scientific realm is not value free, it is value laden. Scientists know they are responsible for the scientific integrity of their work—its intellectual contribution. They do not readily assume responsibility for the moral aspects of their work. All of science and all of agricultural science are involved in moral/value questions, which have been ignored within the agricultural community. Agriculture practitioners have made the case for the wisdom of feeding a growing population because in their view it matched universal societal values. This is a value question that demands public discussion. It is a question where philosophical reasoning is required; a question where final answers are not obvious. The discussion moves away from purely rationalistic, technocratic modes of thinking toward something more humane, more fair, and more difficult.120 But the

4  Concluding Comment

83

subject seems to disintegrate because the terms are not concrete; they are not factual. Instead of trying to discuss, which may be perceived as questioning someone’s values, we should ask about people’s motives, their preferences, or the prevailing norms of a particular group in society and proceed to the difficult question—What is the right thing to do? The question deals with and tries to know how human beings attach value and moral weight to what they do. What do we mean by the concept of a value judgment? Is it one that will provide a solution for several difficult cases or is it only applicable to one case? A value judgment could be dubious, unreliable, biased, prejudicial, or intolerant. Perhaps all value judgments of merit or worth are in fact biased, unreliable, and intolerant.121 Discussion should distinguish between true values which mean something quite different from market value. The way agriculture is practiced, research projects are conducted, and the teaching we do involves scientific and moral values and views of a future we expect, desire, or fear. As agriculture’s ethical foundation is considered, there will be conflicting interests, incompatible analyses based on different views of the nature of the problem, and rising material expectations. Knowing the ethical foundation for action is just as essential as knowing the scientific hypotheses that support experimentation. Scientists know that in the scientific realm, their answers can be defined mathematically and are publicly verifiable, literal, definitive, precise, and falsifiable. In contrast, it is common to believe that ethical positions are purely subjective and should be avoided in scientific inquiry. They are only opinions and lack a rational justification. Ethical norms claiming that slavery, Nazi Germany’s policy to eliminate Jews, or female genital mutilation are wrong are not merely subjective statements relative to a person’s time and place in society. There is widespread, perhaps near universal, agreement that these things are wrong and the reasons provided across cultures are similar. Ethical claims are supported by careful, logical reasoning. The normative descriptive language speaks of what is most important and why it is or ought to be valued. Moral/ ethical reasoning reflects a long distinguished history of rational public discourse. The discussions should not be conceived as an attempt to show that someone else’s position is wrong. Discussants must work toward a consensus on what ethical norms are appropriate for agriculture. Because agriculture is the essential human activity, it is essential that it rest on a firm ethical foundation. It is not just about results. Principles matter because they determine what values are operative and what truths are sought. Exploration of agriculture’s moral dilemmas by ethicists and agricultural people will facilitate navigation through complex issues and serve as a guide to ways to construct common ground for resolution of agriculture’s moral dilemmas. The prevailing assumption is that technical solutions will continue to reduce and eventually eliminate hunger because the productive progress of the green revolution was proof that the key to agricultural success is faith in scientific savoir faire and technological know-how. As we seek that common ground, we should resist the temptation of presentism—an uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, including a tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.

84

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

Notes  1. Follett, J. 1988. Mirage. Methuen London, Ltd. 388 pp. See p. 283. 2. Suarez, D. 2017. Change agent. Penguin, an imprint of Random House. New York. 403 pp. See p. 12–13. 3. Borlaug, N. 2000. The green revolution revisited and the road ahead. Special 30th anniversary lecture. Norwegian Nobel Institute: Oslo. 4. Atreya, K., B.K. Sitaula, F.H. Johnson, R.M. Bajracharya. 2011. Continuing issues in the limitations of pesticide use in developing countries. Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. 24:49–62 5. Winner, L. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor – A search for limits in an age of high technology. The University of Chicago press, Chicago, IL. 200  pp. See p. 10. 6. Thompson, P.B. 2006. Foreword  – First edition Zimdahl, R.  L. 2006. Agriculture’s Ethical Horizon. P.ix, x. 7. Gould, S.J. 1997. Non-overlapping magisteria. Natural History 106:16–22. Also see Gould, S.J. 1999. Rocks of Ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. Ballantine publishing group, New York. 241 pp. 8. https://www.concernusa.org/story/worlds-ten-hungriest-countries/. Accessed July 2019. 9. https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/07/1042411. Accessed July 2019. 10. Flegal K.M., D. Kruszon-Moran,D.C., C.D. Fryar, C.L. Ogden. 2016. Trends in obesity among adults in the United States, 2005 to 2014. Journal American Medical Association 315(21):2284–2291. 11. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight. Accessed April 2019. 12. Willett, W., J.  Rockström, Brent Loken, Marco Springmann, Tim Lang, S. Vermeulen, et al. 2019. Food in the Anthropocene: the Eat-Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Published online January 16: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. 13. Harari,Y.N. 2017. Homo Deus – a brief history of tomorrow. HarperCollins publishers. New York. 449 pp. 14. Vogt, W., S.I. Freeman, and B.M. Baruch. 1948. Road to Survival. Kessinger Publications, Whitefish, MT 356  pp. And W.  Sloane Asssoc.1948. New York. 335 pp. 15. Leopold, A. 1966. A Sand County Almanac. With essays on conservation from Round River. Ballantine books, New York. 295 pp. 16. Moss, D. and M.  Bittman. 2018. Bringing Farming Back to Nature. The New York Times. June 26. http://qwiket.com/context/topic/opinion-bringingfarming-back-to-nature. Accessed July 2018. 17. Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. 368 pp. 18. An externality is a cost that is not reflected in price or, more technically, a cost or benefit for which no market mechanism exists. It is a loss or gain in the welfare of one party resulting from an activity of another party, without there

4  Concluding Comment

85

being any compensation for the loss. From a self-interested view, an externality is a secondary cost-benefit that not affects the decision-maker. 19. Friedman, T.L. 2016. Thank You For Being Late – An optimist’s guide to thriving in the age of accelerations. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York. 486 pp. 20. Bronowski, J. 1973. The Ascent of Man. Little, Brown and Company. Boston, MA. 448 pp. P. 19. “Man is a singular creature. He has a set of gifts making unique among the animals: so that unlike them, is not a figure in the landscape – is a shaper of the landscape.” 21. See Kurzweil, R. 2005. The Singularity is Near  – When humans transcend biology. Penguin Books New York. 652 pp. 22. Wilson, E.O. 1998. Consilience: the unity of knowledge. Vintage books. New York. 367 pp. 23. See: http://pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/putting-meat-on-the-table. Accessed May 2018. 24. A precise definition of sustainability is elusive. It is a noun often used as an adjective. It is defined as the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level. The usual focus is on meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The concept usually includes economic, environmental, and social aspects—also known informally as profits, planet, and people. The definition of what is to be sustained varies with the context  – agriculture, business, construction, environment, finance, forestry, or geography. See endnotes 26, 27, and 28. 25. Morgan, P.A. and S.J. Peters. 2006. The foundations of the planetary agrarianism. Thomas Berry and Liberty Hyde Bailey. Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. 19:443–468. 26. United Nations. 1987. Report of the world commission on environment and development. Our Common Future. Commonly known as the Brundtland Report after Gro Harlem Brundtland, Chair of the Commission. 27. National Research Council. 2010. Toward sustainable agricultural systems in the 21st century. National Academies Press, Washington DC. 350 pp. 28. Ramsey, J.L. 2014. Defining sustainability. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27:1049–1054. 29. Bailey, Liberty Hyde. 1915. The Holy Earth. Sowers Printing Co., Lebanon, PA. Reprinted 1943, The Christian Rural Fellowship. New York. 117 pp. P. 11. 30. Bontz, S. 2013. Rationing: Not whether but how. The land report. The land Institute. No. 106 pp. 12–15 31. Berry, W. 2012. What Matters? Economics for a Renewed Commonwealth. Counterpoint press, Berkeley, CA. 193 pp. See p. 73–74. 32. Liu, Y., X. Pan, and J. Li. 2015. Current agricultural practices threaten future global food production. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 28:203–216. 33. https://www.worldometers.info/water/. Accessed January 2020. 34. The commonly accepted and most frequently cited value for water use by agriculture is 70%. The value has a lot of underlying assumptions and guesses. For the US it’s more likely around 40% of the total diversion. Some estimates

86

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

of agricultural use are as high as 87%. Energy uses about the same amount of water. 35. Siebert, S., J.  Burke, J.M.  Faures, K.  Frenken, J.  Hoogeveen, P.  Doll, and F.T.  Portmann, 2010. Groundwater used for irrigation—A global inventory. Hydrology and Earth system sciences. 14(10): 1863–1880 36. There are 1000 meters in a kilometer and 1000 cubic meters in a cubic kilometer, which equals 1 billion cubic meters. Therefore 2.8 trillion cubic meters (present consumption) equals 2800 cubic meters, which equals 2800 cubic kilometers. Therefore, annual consumption of 8 to10 cubic meters will be almost three times present human use. 37. Fox, T. 2013. Global food Waste not, Want not – improving the world through engineering. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, UK. 33 pp. 38. Donnelly, K. and H. Cooley. 2015. Water use trends in the United States. The Pacific Institute. Oakland, CA. 16 pp. 39. Sources: Nehring, R., C Osteen, S.J.  Wechsler, A.  Martin, A.  Vialou, and J. Fernandez-Cornejo. 2014. Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture: 21 Selected Crops, 1960–2008. USDA, Economic Research Service. Washington DC. Mosheim, R. 2018. US consumption of plant nutrients. USDA. Economic Research Service, Washington DC.  Accessed July 2018. Pesticide industry sales and usage 2008–2012 Estimates. USEPA. Accessed December 2019. 40. Mejlboom, F.L.B. and F.W.A. Brom. 2012. Ethics and Sustainability: Guest or Guide? On Sustainability as a Moral Ideal. Agriculture Environmental Ethics 25:117–121. 41. Gowdy, J and P. Baveye. 2019. Chapter 27, p. 425–433. In: Agroecosystem Diversity  – Reconciling Contemporary Agriculture and Environmental Quality. G. Lemaire, P. C. De Faccio Carvalho, S. Kronberg, and S. Recous. (Ed.). Academic Press/Elsevier. New York. 464 pp. 42. Worster, D. 2016. Shrinking The Earth – The rise and decline of American abundance. Oxford University Press, UK 265 pp. 43. Ordway, S. Jr. 1953. Resources and the American Dream, Including a theory of the limit of growth. Ronald Press. New York. 44. Kraehmer, H., B.  Laber, C.  Rosinger, and A.  Schulz. 2014. Herbicides as Weed Control Agents: State-of-The-Art: I.  Weed Control Research and Safener Technology: The Path to Modern Agriculture. Plant physiology 166(3):1119–1113. 45. Lamberth, C., S. Jeanmart, T. Luksch, and A. Plant. 2013. Current challenges and trends in the discovery of agrochemicals. Science 341: 742–747. 46. Science 341:730–731. Smarter pest control. Www.sciencemag.org/specialpesticides. Accessed March 2018. 47. United Nations General Assembly. 2017. Report of the special rapporteur on the right to food. Human Rights Council, 34th session, New York. 24 pp. 48. Enserink, M., P.J.  Hines, S.N.  Vignieri, N.S.  Wigginton, and J.S.  Yeston. 2013. The pesticide paradox. Science 341:729. 49. Zimdahl, R.  L. 2018. Agriculture’s moral dilemmas and the need for Agroecology. http://www.mdpi/.com/2073-4395/8/7/116/htm.

4  Concluding Comment

87

50. For further discussion see Zimdahl, R.L. 2015. Chapter 9 (pages 165–182) of Six Chemicals That Changed Agriculture. Academic Press, London, UK. 197 pp. 51. McKenna, M. 2017. Big Chicken  – The incredible story of how antibiotics created modern agriculture and changed the way the world eats. National Geographic. Washington, DC. 400 pp. 52. Kolbert, E. 2014. The sixth extinction – An unnatural history. Henry Holt & Co. New York. 319 pp. 53. Hardeman, E. and H. Jochemsen. 2012. Are there ideological aspects to the modernization of agriculture. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25:657–674. 54. Rollin, B.E. 2004. Annual meeting keynote address: animal agriculture and emerging social ethics for animals. J. Animal Husbandry 82:955–964. 55. Hsiao, T. 2017. Industrial farming is not cruel to animals. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30:37–54. 56. Thompson, P.B. 2000. The reshaping of conventional farming: a North American perspective. Agricultural and environmental ethics 14:217–229. 57. Economist. 2017. Growing leather in factories. More skin in the game. August 26. P. 64–65. 58. https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQs/fundamentals/. Accessed August 2019. 59. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). 2016. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2016. ISAAA Brief No. 52. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY Accessed September 2018. Also see http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/16/. 60. Globalized status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2017. See http:// www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/53/, http://www.ISAAA.org/. 61. Heldke, L. 2015. Pragmatist philosophical reflections on GMO’s. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 28:817–836. 62. Burkhardt, J. 2000. Agricultural biotechnology in the future benefits argument. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 14:135–145. 63. Scott, D. 2011. The technological fix criticisms in the agricultural biotechnology debate. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 24:207–226. 64. https://gmoanswers.com/studies/study-new-report-highlights-20years. Accessed March 2018 65. Altieri, M. 2000. Food first special report no. 1. Genetic engineering and agriculture: The myths, environmental risks, and alternatives. Oakland, CA: Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy. 66. Goldberg, R., J. Rissler, H. Shand, and C. Hassebrook. 1990. Biotechnologies bitter harvest: herbicide-tolerant crops and the threat to sustainable agriculture. A report of the biotechnology working group. 73 pp. 67. Tokar, B (Ed.). 2001. Redesigning life? The worldwide challenge to genetic engineering. Palgrave a division of St. Martin’s press. New York. 439 pp.

88

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

68. Denison, R.F. 2012. Darwinian Agriculture – How understanding evolution can improve agriculture. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 258 pp. See p. 4. 69. Hansson. S.O. and K.  Joelsson. 2013. Crop biotechnology for the environment? Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. 26:759–770 70. Sexton, S., N. Hildyard, and L. Lohmann. 1998. Food? Help? Hope? Genetic engineering and world hunger. CornerHouse Briefing No. 10. Sturminster, Newton, Dorset, UK. 35 pp. 71. Myhr, A.I. 2010. A precautionary approach to genetically modified organisms: Challenges and implications for policy and science. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23:501–525. 72. http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=17632. Accessed August 2019. 73. Sandin, P. and P. Moula. 2015. Modern biotechnology, agriculture, and ethics. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 28:803–806. 74. Catacora-Vargas, G., R. Binimelis, A.L. Myhr, and B. Wynne. 2018. Socio-­ economic research on genetically modified crops: A study of the literature. Agriculture and Human Values 35(2): 489–513. 75. Mampuys, R. and F.W.A. Brom. 2015. Ethics of dissent: a plea for restraint in the scientific debate about the safety of GM crops. Agricultural And Environmental Ethics 28:903–924. 76. Rousseau, J.J. 1762. Emile, Book III. P. 307. 77. Berry, W. 2017. The Art of Loading Brush  – New agrarian writings. Counterpoint. Berkeley, California. 270 pp. 78. Bain, C. and T. Selfa. 2017. Non-GMO versus organic labels: Purity or process guarantees in a GMO contaminated landscape. Agriculture and Human Values. 34(4): 805–818. 79. Toft, K.H. 2012. GMO’s and global justice: applying global justice theory to the case of genetically modified crops and food. Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. 25:223–237. 80. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/. Accessed March 2018. 81. Reich, R.B. 2018. The Common Good. Alfred A. Knopf. 193 pp. 82. Kirschenmann, F. 2010. Some things are priceless. Leopold letters 22(1):5, Zimdahl, R. L. 2012. Agriculture’s Ethical Horizon. 2nd. Ed. Elsevier insights. London, UK. 274 pp. See p. 38. 83. Berry, W. 2017. The art of loading brush – New agrarian writings. Counterpoint press, Berkeley, CA. 270 pp. See p. 168. 84. Blancke, S., W.  Grunewald, and G.  De Jaeger. 2017. De-Problematizing GMOs: Suggestions for communicating about genetic engineering. Trends in Biotechnology. 35(6): 508–517. 85. pewinternet.org.2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-­ society. Accessed March 2018. 86. Bogdanove, S.  J., D.  M. Donovan, E.  Elorriaga, J.  Kuzma, K.  Pauwels, S.  H. Strauss, and D.F.  Voytas. 2018. CAST Issue Paper No. 60. Genome

4  Concluding Comment

89

­ diting in Agriculture: Methods, Applications, and Governance. Counsel for E Agricultural Science and Technology Ames, IA. 24 pp. 87. https://www.toxicology.org/pubs/statements/SOT_Safety_of_GE_Food_ Crops_Issue_Statement. Final PDF. Accessed March 2018 88. Blancke, S., F.  Van Breusegem, G.  DE Jaeger, J.  Braeckman, and M.  Van Montagu. 2015. Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends in Plant Science 20(7): 414–418. 89. Robaey, Z. 2015. Looking for moral responsibility and ownership: a way to deal with hazards of GMO’s. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28:43–56, Robaey, Z. 2016. Transferring more responsibility for technological hazards: the case of GMO’s in agriculture. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29:767–786. 90. Barber, D. 2019. Save our food from the seed barons. The New York Times, Sunday, June 9, pp. 6–7. 91. The Economist. 2018. The safety of CRISPR-CAS9 gene editing is being debated. July 21. P. 64. 92. The Economist. 2017. Biotechnology: Covering the bases. October 28, P. 77–78. 93. Dill G.M., R.D. Sammons, P.C.C. Feng, F. Kohn, K. Kretzmer, A. Mehrsheikh et al. 2010. Glyphosate: discovery, development, applications, and properties. Chapter 1 (pp. 1–33). In: V.K. Nandula (Ed.) Glyphosate resistance in crops and weeds: history, development, and management. Wiley, NY. 344 pp. 94. Duke, S.O. 1990. Overview of herbicide mechanisms of action. Env. Health Perspectives 87:263–271 95. Zimdahl, R.L. 2018. Fundamentals of Weed Science, fifth edition. Academic Press. San Diego, CA. 735 pp. 96. Weedscience.org. International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. Accessed February 2020. 97. Gillam, C. 2017. Whitewash – The story of a weed killer, cancer, and the corruption of science. IslandPress. Washington, DC. 305 pp. 98. Cohen, P. 2019. A weed killer’s sales prove resistant to lawsuits. NY Times. September 22. 99. Andreotti, G., S. Koutros, J.N. Hofmann, D.P. Sandler, J.H. Lubin, et al. 2017. Glyphosate use and cancer incidence in the agricultural health study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. HTTPs://doi.org/10/10.1093/jnci/djx233. 100. Brookes, G., F. Taheripour, and W.E. Tyner. 2017. Contribution of glyphosate to agriculture and potential impact of restrictions on use at the global level. GM Crops Food. 8(4):216–228. 101. The commonly accepted and most frequently cited value for water use by agriculture is 70%. The value has a lot of underlying assumptions and guesses. For the US it’s more likely around 40% of the total diversion. Energy uses about the same amount of water. 102. Donnelly, K. and H. Cooley. 2015. Water use trends in the United States. The Pacific Institute. Oakland, CA. 16 pp.

90

5  Agriculture’s Moral Dilemmas

103. Ivahnenko, Tamara, and Flynn, J.L., 2010, Estimated withdrawals and use of water in Colorado, 2005: U.S.  Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010–5002, 61 p. 104. Maupin, M.A., Kenny, J.F., Hutson, S.S., Lovelace, J.K., Barber, N.L., and Linsey, K.S., 2014, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1405, 56 p. 105. World Watch magazine. 2004. Matters of scale  – Planet Golf. 17(2): 36. Worldwatch Institute, Washington DC. 106. Berry, W. 1977. The Unsettling of America: Culture and agriculture. Avon books, New York. 228 pp., Brei, A.T. 2013. Approaching environmental issues by way of human rights. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 26:393–408, Gebhard, E., N. Hagemann, L. Hensler, S. Schweizer, and C. Wember. 2015. Agriculture and Food 2050: Visions to promote transformation driven by science and society. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 28:497–516. 107. Jackson, W. 2000. The need of being versed in country things. The land report. Summer p12–18. 108. The Economist 2019. On the brink. August 3. Pp 14–16. 109. Gamborg, G., K. Millar, O. Shortall, and P. Sandøe. 2012. Bioenergy and land use: framing the ethical debate. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25:909–925. 110. Gomiero, T., M.G.  Paoletti, and D.  Pimentel. 2010. Biofuels: Efficiency, Ethics, and Limits to Human Appropriation of Ecosystem Services. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 23:403–434. 111. Rollin, B.E. 2014. The Perfect Storm—Genetic Engineering, Science, and Ethics. Science and Education 23: 509–517. 112. Hawking, S. 2018. Brief Answers To The Big Questions. Bantam Book, NY. 231 pp. 113. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) 2019. Chinese scientists’ genome-edited wheat to help control weeds. Crop biotech update. [email protected]. Accessed April 2019. 114. Winner, L. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor – a search for limits in an age of high technology. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 200  pp. (See p. 50). 115. The comparison looks good, but the world population in 1975 was 4.061 billion; in April 2018, it was 7.615 billion. In 1975, one in four equaled a little over 1 billion. In 2018, 1 in 10 equaled 761.5 million. 116. Berry, W. 2002. The Art of the Commonplace: The Agrarian Essays of Wendell Berry. Edited and introduced by Norman Wirzba. Shoemaker & Hoard, Washington DC. 330 pp. 117. http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%20 2002.htm. Accessed May 2015. 118. Thompson, P.B. 1989. Values and food production. J. Agric. Ethics 2:209–223. 119. Merton, T. 1996. Letter to an Innocent Bystander, p.53–62 of Raids on The Unspeakable. New Directions Publishing Corporation. New York. 182 pp.

4  Concluding Comment

91

120. Winner, L. 1986. The Whale and the Reactor – a search for limits in an age of high technology. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, IL. 200 pp. (See p. 106). 121. Scriven, M. 1994. The exact role of value judgments in science. Pp 29–50 in E. Erwin, S. Gendin and L. Kleiman (Eds.) Ethical issues in scientific research: an anthology. Garland publishing, Inc. Garland studies in applied ethics, Vol. 2. New York. 413 pp.

Chapter 6

Ethics in Agriculture and Other Disciplines

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Shakespeare – Hamlet, Act 1, scene 5 Hamlet speaking to Horatio

Over my years in the University, I observed that many of my colleagues, particularly in agriculture, are in a hurry; they are running. Everyone seems to be in a hurry to get to work, to get to lunch, and to get home. Life is going too fast. There’s not enough time to do all that must be done and very little time left to do what one wants to do. We drive and walk as we speak on our cell phones. We multitask and work at the office and at home. We are never out of touch. Every night lions go to sleep knowing that in the morning when the sun comes up, if they can’t outrun the slowest gazelle, they will go hungry. Every night gazelles go to sleep knowing that in the morning, when the sun comes up, if they can’t outrun the fastest lion, they will be eaten. The one thing lions and gazelles both know when they go to sleep each night is that in the morning, when the sun comes up, they had better start running.1

The lion and the gazelle know why they are running. Why are we running? I’m not sure we know either why we are running or where we are going. Thomas Merton2 cited Ionesco who said: “The universal and modern man is the man in a rush, a man who has no time, who is a prisoner of necessity.” The rushing modern man in developed countries is, on average, 4½ times richer than his great-grandparents were at the end of the nineteenth century. But, one must ask if he is, indeed, if we are, 4½ times happier. Has greater consumption and more running made us happier? As they run to do many things, many thoughtful people are trapped by the conundrum of consumption—an ethical and environmental problem that has no satisfactory solution. The conundrum is limiting the consumer lifestyle to those who have already attained it is not politically possible, ecologically sufficient, or ethically defensible. However, extending the lifestyle of developed nations to all who want it, as many do, will hasten the demise of the ecosystem that all are dependent on, and it is ethically wrong to harm the system life depends on.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. L. Zimdahl, Agricultural Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48935-9_6

93

94

6  Ethics in Agriculture and Other Disciplines

When you get up tomorrow morning, probably sometime after the sun comes up and you begin another busy day, perhaps with a running start, I suggest you think about where you are going and why you are running. We run in our scientific careers to do the experiments, write papers, or get a grant. We run in our personal life to balance family and work, to care for others, and to provide a good life for those we love. We may even run in our ethical life as we struggle to determine how to determine what we ought to do. I ask myself and encourage you to ask if your running, your haste, causes you to miss important things. Does your running lead to greater happiness for you and others? Is achieving happiness for others something we simply assume will follow from our work? Should happiness for others be a goal of our work? I think we all may achieve the greatest happiness for ourselves and others when our lives and work lead to being aware of and enjoying the pleasure of others and developing the capacity to be feel the pain of other humans. The ethical position of agricultural science and agriculture’s ethical dilemmas has a role in creating more or less happiness in the world. It is up to us to think critically about our role and our dominant beliefs and behaviors.3 In 1993, after 25 years of intensive work in weed science, I was troubled by the direction of my science, and although pleased with its good results, I was very concerned about its potentially bad results—its moral failures. I began to think about development of an undergraduate course on agricultural ethics at my university to provide a place to think about and discuss what, in my view, agricultural people and my students should be thinking about and discussing. Because I was not educated in philosophy, I decided it would be best to organize and teach a class with a colleague from my university’s Department of Philosophy and double list the class in agriculture and philosophy. Obtaining cooperation from the philosophy department was the easy part of creating the class. The proposal, including the proposed syllabus, had to be submitted to the curriculum committee in each college and then to the University curriculum committee. The College of Agriculture curriculum committee asked me to meet with a sub-committee to respond to several concerns. The sub-committee’s primary concern was that agriculture was faced with many serious challenges and they were fearful that students might be led astray by the wrong answers to difficult but undeniably important questions. The process reinforced my view that agricultural scientists tend to measure and judge agriculture’s progress in terms of technological success and commonly ignore the ethical questions raised by that success. The questions asked during the course evaluation revealed a concern about major ethical issues by agricultural scientists and a reluctance, if not an inability, to address the issues in other than a defensive manner. The course was approved, perhaps reluctantly. The Philosophy department and the University curriculum committee approved the class.

1 Surveys

95

1  Surveys I searched for and sought guidance from similar courses taught at other land-­grant universities. A survey was conducted in 1998 and 1999 to determine what members of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) and of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities offered agricultural ethics as an undergraduate course. Of the 59 responses, 15 US universities had a course on agricultural ethics or one that included the topic. Six reasons were developed to explain why so few universities included agricultural ethics in their curriculum: 1. Professors in Colleges of agriculture have not been educated in ethics and philosophy. Agriculture faculty have been well trained in their discipline by professors who had been equally well trained in the discipline. However, their education was deficient, as mine was, because it had not included classes specifically designed to encourage thinking and questioning. We were well trained to do something. We knew the facts and we knew how to study and interpret the data. Our training did not include classes or professors that taught and encouraged us how to question what we were learning to do—that is to think critically not just to complement or criticize. 2. There has been a lack of institutional or disciplinary incentives for agricultural scientists to reflect on their work and its effects. Positivism1 has dominated agricultural science. It encourages being positive and assured about facts and excludes speculation about ultimate causes. It is the view that agricultural scientists should confine their activity to the collection and analysis of empirical data and analysis of quantifiable relationships in the data. Positivism has dominated because sustained, critical debate about the goals of agricultural science has not been regarded as a necessary part of the scientific process. The view seems to be that it is not needed and may inhibit progress. 3. There is a paucity of administrative leadership in Colleges of Agriculture and limited to no consideration of the value to students and faculty of identification and critical thought about agriculture’s moral dilemmas.4 4. All involved in agriculture have been reluctant to examine the assumption that agriculture is inherently ethically correct. That assumption was strongly influenced by the common belief that ethics is the province of religion, which involves beliefs about the transcendent and is commonly organized by institutions that describe proper behavior based on moral rules and ideas. Religion is an important source of ethical values, concepts, and ideals, but it is not the only or ultimate source. 5. The felt necessity of agricultural scientists to defend themselves and their discipline against what they perceived to be unjust, inaccurate criticisms of agriculture.

 Positivism was discussed in Chap. 5 (see endnote 6).

1

96

6  Ethics in Agriculture and Other Disciplines

6. A reluctance to engage in ethical reflection because it might raise more problems than it solves. The 2000 paper (1998–1999 survey – endnote 4) concluded by suggesting if the agricultural faculty and others involved in agriculture do not recognize the opportunity and obligation to participate in examining and shaping the values of agriculture, they will be determined elsewhere in the institution and in society. The 1998–1999 survey was repeated in 20165 and found only ten universities that offered a course on or one that included agricultural ethics. Prof. Thomas Holtzer taught the Colorado State University agricultural ethics course after I retired. When he moved to a different administrative position and subsequently retired, no one (including the Dean) in the College of Agriculture was interested in taking responsibility for the class. Therefore, it is no longer taught. In 2018, only 9 US land-grant universities offered a class on agricultural ethics; 64 of 73 Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture did not. In my opinion all should. Apotheker6 (2000) asked if agriculture was in need of ethics? His paper suggested the agro-food industry, particularly animal agriculture, ought to be ready for discussion, and reflection on values and norms, and for rethinking old and new ideas. But the course surveys, industry attitudes, and Colleges of Agriculture do not seem to be ready. Such discussions are rare or absent.

2  The University Busch and Lacy7 (p 35) strongly suggested that agricultural scientists failed to comprehend that their science was a social process guided by the shared aims of scientists that are formulated in the political sphere and are often strongly biased in favor of powerful interests. Their claim to scientific autonomy had the effect of making their science the pawn of vested interests because it served to divert scientific attention away from questions of ends—e.g., What is a good society? They asked if agricultural practices contribute to or deter creation of a good society?—a questions of means. Instead the dominant question was and still is—How can productivity be increased?—a question of ends. Busch and Lacy suggested that “from the mid-­1930s through the 1960s, rare was the voice that questioned the primacy of the quest for increased productivity.” Wendell Berry has and continues to question agriculture’s success and its practices. Berry8 (p. 34) argues that farming is not just an industry that can be unendingly transformed by technologies so farmers can be replaced by engineers, and engineers finally by robots, in a kind of evolution of agriculture toward the goal of human uselessness. Agriculture needs the virtues and insights of the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines, but, in Berry’s view, we should not “allow the value of highly technical knowledge to depress the value of the equally necessary and respectful knowledge of land-use and land-husbandry. “We must recognize the value of what he calls the Law of Humility—a respect, a

2  The University

97

kind of reverence, and a deference before nature’s ultimately mysterious forms and processes9 that can be described and understood. Lockeretz10 recommended removing highly applied research (e.g., pesticide efficacy testing) from the academic domain and treating it as a proper service to the university’s outside constituencies.11 In his view, agricultural research gained the prestige associated with the Academy at a cost: the possible conflict between serving the world of scholarship and serving the world of agriculture. For many disciplines, but not for agriculture, becoming part of the Academy meant becoming more isolated from their roots. They adopted professional norms that “at least in style— although not in intellectual content—made them more scholarly and academic.” David Orr12 (P. 102) charged that educators have equipped graduates with the tools and technology necessary to enlarge the human empire, but not the wisdom to understand the consequences of doing so. Students have learned how to dismantle the world and concoct all manner of things but not why that was often a bad idea or how to repair the resulting damage. We have taught them how to manipulate, make, conjure, communicate worldwide, and sell everything under the sun but not how to think about the effects on themselves or others of doing such things. We have taught the future leaders of mighty corporations how to grow their companies beyond imagination but given them no guidance regarding the physical, ecological, and moral limits to the scale of the human estate or the concepts of enough and sufficiency.

Orr agrees with Logsdon13 who proposes that agricultural education has failed. We have prepared students to deal with the challenges of the twenty-first century without knowing what those challenges will be. Logsdon concludes with the stinging comment that tenure is unnecessary because no well-paid professor says anything that requires that kind of protection. Lockeretz proposes a serious incompatibility between the social purpose of agricultural research and the prevailing values of the Academy. “Applied and practical should not be terms of opprobrium in agricultural research.” The question for whom the research is being done remains. Applied agricultural research within a land-­ grant university is ideally intended to improve our agricultural system. Yields of important crops have increased. But some (e.g., Foley14) ask if that increase has been achieved at an unacceptable environmental cost. Is our present energy, capital, and chemical agricultural system sustainable? Our universities and colleges of agriculture within the Academy have become more entrepreneurial15 and more dependent upon external, sponsored research. One must question if much agricultural research is designed primarily to benefit the external funding source, the farmer, or the consumer. Americans have an intense faith in the personal and civic uses of higher education. We believe it leads to a good job, financial security, and maybe even happiness. Their belief has not been accompanied by an equally profound understanding of the cultural content of education16 (see p. 103, 115). Those who defend applied agricultural research and its practical and vocational aspects argue that it is simply in addition to, rather than in place of, intellectual endeavors. As mentioned in Chap. 2, the University seems to have surrendered to the norms of business and become competitive in the hunt for endowments and students. Their

98

6  Ethics in Agriculture and Other Disciplines

surrender has not been unreasonable given the fact that in nearly every US state, support for higher education in 2018 had not reached pre-recession levels and averages about 10% of the university budget. A consequence is that University administrators are single-minded in their pursuit of business goals. They seem to have adopted an external orientation favoring governmental and corporate alliances. The apparent long-term tendency of the faculty has been to devote more and more time to research and personal enterprises. PhD students and non-tenured/adjunct faculty do much of the teaching because many professors shun teaching as an unrewarding, time-consuming chore that detracts from their research. Teaching has been distributed further down the academic hierarchy.17 The faculty has become increasingly disengaged from the University in order to engage the discipline and then disengaged from the discipline in order to align their research with the principal centers of political and economic power. Carey18 offers the challenge that the University does not need consent of the faculty and the faculty has no real collective life. What the University needs from the faculty is not consent but compliance. Sponsored, external programs define the University’s research path. The primary goal of professional and graduate education is certification19 (p. 41, 186).

3  The Ethical Dimension Over the past several decades, the ethics industry has kicked into high gear.20 For most professions, there is another profession called the ethics of that profession. However, the word agricultural is rarely used as an adjective before the noun ethics. They just don’t seem to go together. There is an ethics industry for agriculture, but it exists primarily outside colleges of agriculture. The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, first published in 1991, and the Journal of Agriculture and Human Values, first published in 1997, are valuable contributions that do not receive appropriate contributions or attention from those engaged in agriculture. It is tempting, but not persuasive, to agree with Marino that the moral challenge is not to study meta-ethical paradigms and case histories, it’s simply to abide by the knowledge we already have that tells us what is the right thing to do. A traditional responsibility of the University has been to consider, to question, and, if necessary, to stand in opposition to whatever at the moment is the dominant force in fashion and thereby align itself with the public’s interest that is oriented to the conditions of long-term stability. During my 50-year association with land-grant universities, that has not been a dominant theme within colleges of agriculture. The more apparent alignment has been with the interests of the dominant agricultural industries. Nearly all US Universities necessarily adopted an entrepreneurial format by the end of the twentieth century. They are now dominated by the ascendancy of financial thinking, which often results in doing what was cheapest, but perhaps not the best. The dominant scientific and technological mentality encouraged us to believe that anything could be achieved when one possessed the right instruments, machines, techniques, people, and enough money. Those engaged in agriculture knew they

3  The Ethical Dimension

99

were engaged in the essential industry. But the vast majority of the American public knew almost nothing about where their food came from or how it was produced. Agriculture was a concern of specialists, not a topic on which any reasonably well-­ informed citizen should feel obligated to have an informed opinion.21 Even though the vast majority of the American public knows very little about how their food is produced, an increasingly vocal minority has opinions about how agriculture is practiced and about its moral dilemmas (Chap. 5). They have ethical concerns, which the most agricultural specialists do not address. Because the ethics industry has kicked into high gear, it seemed reasonable to search for guidance on prevailing ethical standards in other disciplines. Medical schools, law schools, colleges of business, psychology, and some agricultural disciplines have published codes of ethics. Reich22 clearly stated the dominant view of ethics in these diverse disciplines. “Ethics involves fulfilling legal responsibilities, avoiding obvious conflicts of interest, and behaving in an aboveboard manner. As routinely taught in graduate schools of business and as required for obtaining many professional licenses, ethics is about how to avoid legal troubles or public relations disasters.” His comment summarizes the content and objective of most ethics classes. Ethical/moral behavior is ultimately practical. What we think and feel about issues matters. What is important is what we do. It is not just about legal responsibilities and good behavior. An important aspect is achieving what Reich calls The Common Good. Achieving that includes developing the capability to identify the meta-ethical issues, discuss and debate them, and exert oneself to define and achieve the common good. For all disciplines and especially for agriculture, that exertion requires learning how to use philosophical reasoning on questions that constantly test us as we try to know what makes a specific action right or wrong. 1. Medical Schools. In 2017, there were 145 medical schools in 45 States. A 2004 survey23 of 125 US and 16 Canadian medical schools showed that all responding institutions offered some formal instruction in medical ethics. A fifth of the schools provided no funding for ethics teaching, and 52% did not fund curricular development in ethics. There was significant variation in the content, method, and timing of ethics education. The reasons for the lack of emphasis were a lack of time in the curriculum, a lack of qualified teachers, and a lack of time in faculty schedules. The University of Colorado School of Medicine has a required course—Humanities, Ethics, and Professionalism. Of the six objectives, the primary goal was to develop the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to practice according to ethical and legal standards. The class is also intended to develop competency in the sub-domains of professionalism, including physicianship, humanism, wellness, and the social, moral, and cultural dimensions of health care through the arts and humanities. In the 1960s, the medical ethics curriculum could best be described as rules of etiquette for doctors.24 There was active opposition to the inclusion of medical ethics in the curriculum because it was assumed that a good clinical teacher would be constantly discussing ethical problems. There was no reason to include them separately in an already overcrowded curriculum. There was an implicit

100

6  Ethics in Agriculture and Other Disciplines

professional ethical code regarding things which were considered to be good and which actions were right. The medical community wanted to make ethical decisions more orderly, systematic, and rational; learning how to do that primarily by example was preferable to leaving everything to sentiment or feelings. The goal was to improve the quality of patient care with cognitive knowledge, behavioral skills, and character development.25 Medical ethics have been taught in most American medical schools since the 1970s. According to Siegler, there is little evidence that the classes have improved patient care. Classes were designed to improve patient care through incorporation of ethical principles. It may in fact have only improved speech.26 Medical school ethics classes emphasize achieving professional competence which includes practicing according to ethical and legal standards. It is clear that the ethics classes in many medical schools include presentation and discussion of fundamental ethical theories, but emphasis on professional obligations dominates discussion of ethical theory. Responsible development and use of emerging technologies are encouraged to bridge the precision of science and the complexity of patient’s lives. 2. Law Schools. A similar picture was found in the 249 US law schools. The American Bar Association requires that all US law schools teach professional responsibility. Every student must complete a two-credit course. The prevailing model for the class focuses on model rules of professional conduct. All US law students are required to pass a national multiple choice test—the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination—which is very practice-oriented and does not require students to consider larger philosophical issues. The responsibilities cover obligations to clients, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, fees, advertising, and many other elements of daily practice. What the required course includes is highly dependent upon who teaches it. Some professors explain the rules and others take a more philosophical approach. 3 . Veterinary Medicine. The Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics last revised in 2016 by the American Veterinary Medical Association emphasizes professional ethics and fails to address substantive ethical issues or theories. Veterinarians must deal with their patient—the animal—and the patient’s owner. Medical doctors only deal with the patient with whom they usually (this is not true for children, senile people, or retarded people) can speak to and discuss their diagnosis and treatment. Veterinary practice changed because of the rise of social ethical concern for animal treatment. Veterinary ethics have progressed beyond traditional concern about professional standards. It is clear that veterinarians must deal with the moral questions occasioned by human use of animals. These include humane slaughter, the use of animals in research and testing, and euthanasia in addition to the professional ethical questions of whether they should accept gifts or meals from pharmaceutical companies. 4 . Business Schools. To the best of my knowledge, all business schools include a class on ethics. The journal of business ethics education was founded in 2003. The journal’s goal is to supply the conceptual tools managers need to make choices that are ethically responsible, culturally sensitive, and technically sound.

3  The Ethical Dimension

101

Most colleges of business have but do not require a class on business ethics. Class content depends on the professor. 5. Psychology. The American Psychological Association adopted a statement of ethical principles for psychologists and a code of conduct in 2016. It is clearly a statement of professional responsibilities. 6 . Agricultural Societies. The American Society of Agronomy first published a statement of ethics in November 1992. The statement was intended to promote the highest quality of scientific and professional conduct and endorsed six guiding principles, which represented basic scientific and professional values. One guiding principle mentioned ethical principles. “As mentors of the next generation of scientific and professional leaders, strive to instill these ethical standards in students at all educational levels.” One of the five missions of the American Society of Animal Science is to hold the care and use of animals to the highest standards of integrity and professional ethics. The standards are not described. The North Central Weed Science Society (NCWSS) of America revised their code of ethics in 2017. It defined professional conduct which is binding on all members of the society. In 2012, I was asked to draft a statement of ethics for the Western Society of Weed Science (WSWS). It included six points which were nearly identical to those adopted by the American Society of Agronomy. I recommended an additional nine points be adopted. They were designed to acknowledge the collective obligation to consider the importance and relevance of value criteria applicable to determining if weed science and technology achieve the ultimate goal of maximizing the general welfare. They were not adopted by the board. It is clear that any discussion of agriculture must recognize that farmers must make money. The well-being of farmers is the only way to ensure that ethical guidelines will be practiced.27 Some farmers adopt farming practices that represent a moral stance consistent with their view of what constitutes good farming and is most likely to achieve agricultural sustainability. Others will emphasize yield and profitability as primary goals. Over the last few years, I’ve attended some weed science meetings to visit primarily with students and ask two questions: (1) What are the present goals and objectives of weed science? (2) What should the goals and objectives of weed science be over the next 20 years? The unanimous response to my questions was— those are good questions. After further conversation, my conclusion was that the students had never been asked to think about these or similar questions. Conversations with students revealed that they believed the presently dominant goal of weed science has been doing the research to solve the problem of herbicide resistance. A worthy future objective is to develop a more sustainable weed management system. Students were either not aware of or not concerned about ethical questions. When an ethical question was posed, responses were frequently based on emotions or personal belief rather than foundational moral principles. When I suggested that a survey about the use and safety of herbicides among people on the street in one’s

102

6  Ethics in Agriculture and Other Disciplines

hometown would almost inevitably elicit negative opinions, the students I spoke to generally responded with an analytical evaluation with opinions or information drawn from their professors or others. It was an intuitive evaluation based on gut feelings. The students were scientists seeking to be objective and appealing to the impersonal language of numbers or data. Thoughts or opinions of people outside of agriculture were regarded as not verifiable or quantifiable and therefore were suspect because they were just someone’s opinion. It was the student’s interpretation that usually resulted in an immediate judgment of the legitimacy and truth of another’s view. To elicit further answers and discussion of my questions, I published them in the newsletter of the Weed Science Society of America. The first publication elicited no responses and the second only one. I have not had an opportunity to ask similar questions of students from other agricultural disciplines. I suspect the response would be the same. Similar to other disciplines, agriculture also has professionals who study its ethics. Those who study and write about agriculture’s ethics are primarily philosophers who, in a very real sense, live and work outside the agricultural realm. They publish their work in the two journals mentioned above. But as Thompson (endnote 21) points out “the scope of published work in agricultural ethics remains quite narrow.” Thompson accurately notes that within the agricultural community, ethics is understood as something which prescribes a single right action. It’s a matter of right conduct not of thoughtful, reflective inquiry. Agricultural scientists continue to accept the idea that their science is value free. They have not accepted and addressed the challenges from within their own ranks and from society. William et al.28 advocated “blending the social sciences, including risk perception with the sciences of learning, to craft approaches that might work with new technologies such as GMOs.” Ward et al.29 proposed that “agricultural research would benefit from deeper theoretical justification, a broader vision, and increased collaboration across diverse disciplines.” They called for more emphasis on interdisciplinary training. They asked if agricultural scientists were asking the right questions and using the right tools. They suggested their colleagues were not collaborating effectively and not communicating the results to the intended audience. Agricultural scientists’ recommendations were restricted to the scientific realm and only rarely included any suggestion for exploration of the ethical dimension of agriculture’s dilemmas. Independent of discipline, the ethics industry has consistently focused on professional ethics. They are important, if not essential, to success in any profession. There are rules for behavior that all professionals need to know and abide by. All who are involved in agriculture at all levels have personal ethical standards and know and understand the ethical mores imposed by their society. Agricultural scientists are fully aware of the professional ethical standards scientists share. What I have learned from conversations and a review of the published ethical statements of other disciplines is that they are ahead of agriculture in the sense that they have created professional ethical standards as some agricultural disciplines have. My hope was that I would find required classes and published statements of how several professions dealt with the hard questions that require knowledge of and consideration of fundamental principles of moral philosophy. None of the

3  The Ethical Dimension

103

statements I found went beyond the importance of professional ethics. All disciplines need careful ethical study to guide their thinking about the inevitable questions, the hard questions, that arise in all professions, indeed in life. How do you decide what to do? How do you know what you choose to do is the right thing to do? To solve the problems agriculture’s technology has created, its practitioners should understand and consider their ethical foundation. They need this not only to be able to respond responsibly to those who object to their activities but also to defend their activities and goals. The moral philosophical principles of utilitarianism, deontological or Kantianism, virtue ethics, ethical egoism, and social contract theory are available in several sources. Describing them is beyond the intended scope of this book. Agricultural scientists and agricultural practitioners have been so mesmerized by their naïve belief that, somehow, nature is so resilient; it cannot unravel before our very eyes. Even if it does, scientific technological expertise will, as it has, come up with technology to assure our survival.30 This view endures in spite of a wide array of scientific observations that the earth’s life-sustaining natural resources are being exhausted at a pace that threatens comfort, economic prosperity, and even our survival. Those in agriculture are convinced that the past success of the agricultural enterprise and that its continued success is assured that they can ignore or refuse to acknowledge the connection between our survival and the necessity of protecting the earth. All seem to ignore that Jared Diamond31 was not just presenting an historical study of societal collapse. He was talking about our society and how our choices predict and may assure its imminent collapse. He did not directly mention agriculture, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that if agriculture collapses, our society is doomed. Steven Pinker32 (p. 76 and 154) cautions us about the often overwhelming tendency to be pessimists and naysayers. Thanks to the green revolution, the world needs less than 1/3 of the land it used to need to produce a given amount of food. Between 1961 and 2009, the amount of land used to grow food increased only 12%, while the amount of food grown increased 300%. Pinker notes that in spite of what he calls a half-century of panic, we are not on an irrevocable path to ecological suicide. Our environment is in danger, but we should be optimistic because he believes, as Marx did, that we can solve the problems we have created. Philosophers are accused of being naysayers perhaps because they have a great ability to challenge us with good questions. They study moral philosophy not to tell us what is right and wrong but to show us how to think about what is right and wrong. Is the proper goal to increase food production regardless of the environmental cost? Ethical study will help us answer this and similar difficult, necessary questions. There is certainty in ethics. It’s not just my opinion versus yours. Ethical norms are not just subjective statements relative to a person’s time and place in society. There is widespread, perhaps near universal, agreement that some things are wrong and the reasons provided across cultures are similar. Ethical claims are supported by careful, logical reasoning. The normative descriptive language speaks of

104

6  Ethics in Agriculture and Other Disciplines

what is most important and why it is or ought to be valued. Moral/ethical reasoning reflects a long distinguished history of rational public discourse. Whether one lives in a developed or developing country and whether one is rich or poor, male or female, or formally educated or not, we all live in a postindustrial, information age society. We live in an era of scientific achievement and technological progress, unequaled in human history, which has created the good life many of us, but not all, enjoy and some of the problems from which we suffer. It is reasonable to suggest that many with whom we share this planet want more of the good things of life. It is equally reasonable to suggest that proper goal of agriculture should be to achieve a good life for all—Reich’s common good. To achieve the common good is often equated with achieving happiness. The concept may have originated with Aristotle, who believed that true happiness came only from a life of meaning—of doing what was worth doing. All in agriculture need to be wary, as the earth needs to be wary of a decision-making elite who make decisions to further their own short-term interest rather than the long-term interests—the common good—of society (endnote 32, p. 430). All engaged in the agricultural enterprise are pursuing the worthy goal of feeding a growing population. We need to have more than a supporting industry that deals with the ethics of our profession. Because agriculture is the essential human activity, it is important that it rest on a firm ethical foundation. It’s not just about results. We need to clarify, define, and be able to defend our scientific technological achievements and respond to legitimate concern and criticism. We need to listen to and engage the public and those who object to what we do in a discussion about why and how we do what we do. It cannot be a discussion where the primary focus is agricultural people telling the public why they are correct. We, who have lived in the academic realm, are educators, but we need to admit we also need to be educated.

Notes 1. Friedman, T.L. 1999. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. New York. 394 pp. See p. 270–271. 2. Merton, T. 1966. Rain and the Rhinoceros. P. 9–23 in Raids on the Unspeakable. New Directions, New York. The quotation is from Ionesco, E. 1967. Notes and Counter Notes. J Calder publications Ltd. UK. 3. Sanders, S.R. 2018. Conscience and Resistance – On reading Thomas Merton in the rain. Orion. Spring, p. 14–24. 4. Zimdahl, R.L. 2000. Teaching agricultural ethics. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 13:229–247. 5. Zimdahl, R.L. and T.O. Holtzer. 2016. The Ethical Values in the U.S. Agricultural and Food System. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29:549–557. 6. Apotheker, H. 2000. Is agriculture in need of ethics? Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 12:9–16.

3  The Ethical Dimension

105

7. Busch, L. and W.B.  Lacy. 1983. Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 303 pp. 8. Berry, W. 2017. The Art of Loading Brush – New agrarian writings. Counterpoint Press. Berkeley, CA. 270 pp. 9. Rosseau, J.J. 1762. Emile, Book III, P. 307. Nature never deceives us; we deceive ourselves. 10. Lockeretz, W. 1995. Removing applied agricultural research from the Academy. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 10(1) 19–24. 11. Zimdahl, R.L. 1998. Rethinking agricultural research roles. Agriculture and Human Values. 15:77–84. 12. Orr, D. W. 2016. Dangerous years: climate change, the long emergency, and the way forward. Yale University Press, New Haven, CN. 300 pp. 13. Logsdon, G. 1994. At Nature’s Pace: Farming and the American Dream. Pantheon Books, New York. 208 pp. 14. Foley, J.A. 2011. Can we feed the world & sustain the planet. Scientific American 305(5):60–65. 15. Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, C. Gebhardt, and B.R.C. Terra. 2000. The future of the University and the University of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research policy 29: 313–330. 16. Hofstadter, D. and C.D.  Hardy. 1952. The development and scope of higher education in the United States. Columbia University press, For The Commission on Financing Higher Education. 254 pp. 17. The Economist. 2018. Higher and higher education. May 18, pp. 52–53. 18. Carey, J.W. 2000. The Engaged Discipline. The Carroll C. Arnold distinguished lecture. National communication Association. Boston, MA. 16 pp. 19. Hansen, J.E. 2007. Democracy’s University: A History of Colorado State University 1970–2003. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 450 pp. 20. Marino, G. 2004. Before teaching ethics, stop kidding yourself. The Chronicle Review 50(24): page B5. February 19. 21. Thompson, P.B. 2015. Agricultural ethics: then and now. Agriculture and Human Values 32:77–85. 22. Reich, R.B. 2018. The Common Good. Alfred A. Knopf. New York. 193 pp. 23. Lehmann, L.S., W.S. Kasoff, P. Koch, and D.D. Federman. 2004. A survey of medical ethics education at U.S. and Canadian medical schools. Acad. Med. 79(7): 682–689. 24. Stirrat, G.M. 2015. Reflections on learning and teaching medical ethics in UK medical schools. J. Medical Ethics 41(1): 8–11. 25. Siegler, M. 2001. Lessons from 30 years of teaching clinical ethics. American Medical Association Journal of ethics. 3:10–14. 26. Kass, L. 1990. Practicing ethics: where’s the action? Hastings Center Report 20: 5–12. 27. Waldau, P. and K.C.Patton. 2006. A Communion of Subjects: Animals in religion, science, and ethics. Columbia University press, New York. 720 pp. 28. William, R.D., A. Ogg, and C. Rabb. 2001. My view. Weed science 49:149.

106

6  Ethics in Agriculture and Other Disciplines

29. Ward. S.M., R.D.  Cousens, M.V.  Bagavathiannan, J.N.  Barney, H.J.  Beckie, R. Busi, et al. 2014. Agricultural Weed Research: a Critique and two Proposals. Weed science 62:672–678. 30. Wood, M.C. 2010. “You can’t negotiate with a beetle”: Environmental law for a new ecological age. Natural resources Journal. 50:167–210. 31. Diamond, J.M. 2005. Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. Viking Press, New York. 575 pp. 32. Pinker, S. 2018. Enlightenment Now  – The Case For Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Viking. 556 pp.

Chapter 7

Seeking Common Ground

The deep ecologists warned us not to be anthropocentric, but I know no way to look at the world, settled or wild, except through my own human eyes. I know that it wasn’t created especially for my use, and I share the guilt for what members of my species, especially the migratory ones, have done to it. But I am the only instrument that I have access to by which I can enjoy the world and try to understand it. So I must believe that, at least to human perception, a place is not a place until people have been born in it, have grown up in it, have lived in it, known it and died in it—have both experienced and shaped it, as individuals, families, neighborhoods, and communities, over more than one generation.1 (p. 201)

A Buddhist parable2: One day, a person is walking down a street. She steps in a big hole in the sidewalk and wrenches her leg. The next day, she is walking on the same street but forgets the hole is there. The same thing happens—she steps right into it, this time with a little more anger. On the third day, she makes a point to watch for the hole. But she gets distracted and steps into it. On the fourth day, she stays vigilant, remembers to watch for the hole, and walks carefully around it. And then, on the fifth day, she decides to walk down a different street. Parables convey a truth or a moral lesson indirectly by use of comparison or analogy. This parable mirrors where humanity walks today. Blake (endnote 2) claims that “we know with certainty that the manner in which we inhabit the earth is not working.” The evidence, in his view, is everywhere: polluted water, vanished forests, collapsing ecosystems, a warming climate, and the violence and economic inequality of our society. He claims that although we, one assumes he means most Americans, know all of these things and we see the evidence every day, we just keep stepping in the same hole or walking around it assuming someone will fix it. I agree that many of us know the evidence. But even though the hole is still there and we use the same street, I disagree with Blake’s subsequent claim that we are © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. L. Zimdahl, Agricultural Ethics - An Invitation, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48935-9_7

107

108

7  Seeking Common Ground

certain that the manner in which we inhabit the earth is not working. On the contrary, I claim that most Americans and most citizens of other developed countries, and indeed most people with whom we share this planet do not share the view that the way we inhabit the earth is not working. They share the view that while there are problems, someone, somewhere is working to solve them. I regularly ask friends, neighbors, and others I meet about agriculture and food. I do not find much concern about food supply, but when I ask about pesticides, GMOs, animal treatment, or other agricultural issues, I encounter genuine concern about food quality, agricultural technology, and the role of agri-business firms. Capra’s3 language is not used, but thoughtful readers and listeners of news sources wonder if agricultural science and agri-business are life-preserving or life-destroying. There are very few, if any, effects of agricultural practice that most people are aware of. Grocery supermarkets across the country are always full of high-quality, reasonably priced, abundant food. Therefore, there is no reason for most people to think the way we practice agriculture is not working, though many are concerned about uses and abuses of agriculture’s technology. There are really few reasons for most people to think about agriculture at all. They do not have to because they assume somebody else is. However, an increasing number (but far from a majority) of Americans and citizens of other developed countries are concerned about the agricultural system and ask if it does or may harm people and the environment. There is increasing awareness, still inchoate, that the agricultural system may not be sustainable and may have negative effects. There is a growing awareness of the world’s environmental problems including, pollution of air, water, and soil, global warming/climate change, the earth’s sustainable population, waste disposal, deforestation, urban sprawl, and species loss. Here are a few specific examples some related to agriculture; some not: • 38% of world species are threatened with extinction. • The earth loses 18.7 million acres of forest every year  =  27 soccer fields per minute. • 20% of coral reefs have disappeared, another 35% could be lost within 10–40 years. • One-third of sea fisheries have collapsed. All species of wild-caught seafood will collapse by 2050. • One-third of wintering North American bird species have declined since 1966 • 22 US states have lost 50% or more of their original wetlands, and only 7% of old-growth forests remain. • Every second 310 Kg (682 pounds) of toxic chemicals are released into our air, land, and water by industrial facilities around the world.4 Encouraging discussion of the future of agriculture, indeed of the environment, is difficult because the full grocery stores disguise any agricultural problem. But such discussions are necessary given the environmental and agricultural problems we face. Challenges to the existing agricultural system could come from those directly involved in agriculture or from the political/legislative realm or other societal groups.

1  This Book’s Purpose: An Invitation

109

No discussion will succeed if it does not include the hierarchy of agricultural power—the CEOs of agri-business industries, Deans of Colleges of Agriculture, Professors of Agriculture, Presidents of Land Grant Universities, administrators of the US Department of Agriculture, farmers, ranchers, and male and female consumers. Sustainability is clearly a desirable agricultural goal. Everyone is in favor of it. But there is little agreement on the priority of what should be sustained. We must acknowledge that achieving agricultural sustainability depends on the natural resources required, the environment in which production agriculture occurs, and the farmers who produce food. It also depends on the public’s support for the cost of achieving a sustainable agriculture system. It is clear that a sustainable system will only be reached if all levels of society and agricultural people are involved in collectively envisioning a desirable future.5 Menalled,1 for example, found that small grain producers, organic small grain producers, organic vegetable producers, crop consultants, and agricultural researchers in Montana had distinct mental models of their agro-ecological needs, perceptions of agriculture’s problems, and what the goals—the elements of sustainablity should be. The differences and similarities among the Montana groups highlighted the need of incorporating a social dimension (who are the stakeholders) when designing sustainable farming systems. A strawberry grower in western New  York State or California, a dairy farmer in Wisconsin, a cattle rancher in Montana, and a cotton grower in Alabama will have different views of the elements of a sustainable agricultural system, and all should be involved in creating that system. It is without question a difficult, if not insurmountable, task to conceive of how to involve two million farmers in decisions that will affect all of us. But I believe and I want my children to believe in the sacred wisdom of nature and in the necessity of developing sustainable, ecologically based agricultural systems that all the farmers, university researchers, agri-business company employees, etc. agree are correct. Agriculture is the essential human task, and addressing and working to solve its problems, its moral dilemmas, is a task that may give our lives meaning beyond the immediacy of the quotidian.6

1  This Book’s Purpose: An Invitation The purpose of this book is to encourage those who produce our food and all who are concerned about agriculture to recognize the range of moral, production, and sustainable dilemmas created by our agricultural system and to participate in the discussions required to create a resilient, sustainable system that will feed the world’s growing population and protect the environment. The book does not present 1  Menalled, F.  Professor, Weed Ecology and Management, Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.  Personal communication, 2017.

110

7  Seeking Common Ground

a series of solutions because they are beyond my intent and ability. Recommendations on important topics and how to begin to discuss how one knows what they are doing are the right thing to do. My view is that a consensus about the future practice of agriculture must be based on an ecological perspective and may require that we move away from the Cartesian belief in the certainty of scientific knowledge (see endnote 5). A few important topics follow. Those who produce our food, those who develop and provide technology that enable the present agricultural system, those who study and teach agriculture, and concerned citizens must come together to discuss and debate our agricultural system. It is my hope that all will recognize that this is an important, necessary discussion about our future and the planet’s well-being.

2  Agriculture’s Paradigm Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was published in 1962, (2nd edition 19707). Kuhn claimed and provided evidence that science was not a logical and linear accumulation of knowledge where the work of one generation builds on another. It is a series of peaceful, very active interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions. Science progresses in fits and starts. His description typifies agriculture whose practitioners have settled on a way of defining and solving problems. They have what Kuhn famously called a paradigm—“ a universally recognized scientific achievement that for a time provides model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners.” For Kuhn, a paradigm is not a set of answers or a description of the ultimate destination. It is similar to a road sign, which clearly indicates direction and provides options about the route. Agricultural scientists have such a conceptual scheme—an unquestioned way of looking at the world and they are legitimately pleased with the results. But times have changed. A report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine8 concludes that “stresses on the US food and agricultural enterprise will not be resolved if business as usual prevails.” Scientific innovation or reorientation is needed to make the US system more efficient, resilient, and sustainable. The report identifies five scientific research areas that show promise for improving the agricultural system: Transdisciplinary Research and Systems approachs, Sensing technologies, Data Science and Agri-Food Informatics, Genomics and Precision Breeding, and Microbiome research. The report does not mention the value of reevaluating the entire system and including ethicists and the public. Kuhn’s work taught us that science is fundamentally a social process wherein human ingenuity is inevitably mixed with politics and personality.9 Kuhn claimed that as science changes, the world changes. One might invert that claim—as the world changes science must change. Our world has changed.

2  Agriculture’s Paradigm

111

The community of agricultural scientists is an identifiable group that shares common terminology, reads the same or similar journals, attends the same kinds of meetings, and has received similar training. The growth of scientific knowledge has spurred an extensive explosion of agricultural technology which has allowed agricultural people to pursue a morally correct, challenging mission of feeding the world. Agricultural people know technology may cause problems, but they are confident the problems are being addressed and will be solved. The problems are considered to be the price of progress not insurmountable obstacles. If we abandon some or all of present agricultural technology, the essence of the operative paradigm, which has enabled feeding the world it will, in the view of many, hurt the economy, production will decline, as will the US position in the world. Because of the clear success of the current agricultural system, many argue that a paradigm shift is unrealistic, and those who advocate it simply do not understand the burden of feeding a world population. They do not quote the source as they paraphrase Roy’s2 Expert Anthem—“You’re too emotional. You don’t understand and, it’s too complicated to explain.” Roy adds the subtext—“Don’t worry your little head about it. Go play with your toys. Leave the real world to us.” I suggest a paradigm shift is essential if not inevitable because agriculture in the developed world is on a non-sustainable course, and change will occur either within the discipline or be imposed by external political or social organizations. The choice is clear. A new paradigm ought to include examination and careful discussion of the long-term sustainability of the presently dominant chemical, capital, and energy-­ intensive system, the need for adequately funded research on alternative agricultural systems,10 discussion of what scientific and technological research may do and what it may undo, and agriculture’s moral dimension. Growing enough food to feed an expanding world population is a daunting challenge. It is complicated because consumption increases as people’s economic situation improves and they want more meat and dairy products. This challenge must be met in the face of a deteriorating global environment and changing climate, nor can it ignore the presently inequitable distribution of income, wealth, and available food.11 The challenge is not being met now. The world food program estimates that 795 million people in the world who are food insecure (1 in 9).12 In 2018, there were 37.2 million food insecure people just in the United States (1 in 8.8 households).13 A disturbing 2016 report14 that addressed income inequality found that approximately 46% of Americans would have difficulty paying an unexpected $400 bill. Thirty five percent of China’s annual food production is lost or wasted.15, 16, 17 Similar data are available for most of the world’s developed countries.

 Roy, A. 1998. The End of Imagination. Kottayam: D.C. Books. Chapter 8.

2

112

7  Seeking Common Ground

3  Approaching Moral Issues 3.1  A Few Examples If while walking down the street and avoiding the holes in any major or minor US city you pause, as I do, to ask several people what they think of pesticides, the vast majority of people, unless they are engaged in agriculture, will regard pesticides as dangerous, overused, and under regulated. The common citizen’s view differs drastically from the view of those engaged in agricultural production. They regard pesticides as essential to maintaining production of high- quality, nutritious food. They regard the common citizen’s view as misinformed because people do not understand how modern agriculture works and how important pesticides are to production and profit. Those engaged in agriculture are quite sure that if the common citizen would just listen to them and begin to understand how farming is done they would quickly become convinced of the importance of pesticides and less fearful of them. It is uncommon to engage in a conversation where both sides are ready to listen to the other side’s story. The fear of pesticides persists in spite of the fact that the majority of common citizens will buy and use whatever their local garden store recommends to keep dandelions or crabgrass out of their lawn and insects away from them, as they strive to protect and beautify their place. Fertilizer, on the other hand, is regarded as essential to production and does not invoke fear or danger. Most people do not know about the extent of antibiotic use in animal production. If they did they would probably be much more concerned than they are. Similarly, they do not know about the use of growth hormones in animal production. These are areas where education and discussion should begin to reach consensus on what is the right thing to do. Agricultural irrigation water is required throughout the world’s arid climates— the western US being a prime example. In mid-2018, about 35% of the continental US was in a drought that has persisted for several years and is getting worse. Drought is related to global warming which leads to reduced snow pack, reduced annual rainfall, lower reservoir supply, and less water for everybody. Water for irrigating crops is also relatively cheap compared to domestic water. For example, in 2018, the annual cost of 1,587,588 gallons of my irrigation water was $220, which equals 0.014 cents/100 gallons. My household water costs $37 for up to 5000 gallons per month or 0.74 cents/100 gallons a 50 times difference per gallon. In a time of decreasing water supply and increasing urban demand, agriculture’s practitioners must participate in discussions of water allocation and its importance, if not essentiality, to food production

3  Approaching Moral Issues

113

3.2  The US Corn System Agriculture’s difficulties and possibilities are illustrated by the US corn system.18, 19 Corn dominates the landscape in the American Midwest and Great Plains states where more than 90 million acres are grown every year. The acres planted have increased from a low of 60 million in 1980. Yields have steadily increased to an average approaching 172 bushels/acre because of improved varieties, fertilizer, pesticides, and machinery. Production practices have changed with widespread adoption of reduced tillage, better irrigation, and pest management. Thirty percent of the US corn crop is used to produce ethanol for gasoline; approximately 33% is used for animal feed. Wet millers process corn into high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), glucose, dextrose, starch, corn oil, beverage alcohol, and industrial alcohol in addition to fuel ethanol. Somewhere between 10 and 20% of annual US corn production is exported in global coarse grain trade accounting for about two-thirds of the volume of coarse grain trade over the past decade. Only a small fraction of US corn production is used directly to feed people, and most of that is for high-fructose corn syrup. The corn fed to animals provides much of the meat that we eat. The efficiency of converting corn to meat or milk is between 3% and 40% depending upon the animal production system (cattle are much less efficient than poultry). Thus, it reasonable to conclude that the highly productive US corn system is designed to propel cars and feed animals instead of directly feeding people. Foley (endnote 22) has identified four major problems with the corn system. • The corn production system uses a large amount of natural resources. • Because it is a large mono-cultural system, it is highly vulnerable to disease, insect, weed, and economic (low price) shocks. • It is highly subsidized by the US government at a big (generally unknown) cost to taxpayers. Subsidies include direct payments, crop insurance payments, and mandates to produce ethanol approached roughly $90 billion between 1995 and 2010. • Corn is a crucial part of American agriculture and the source of important profits to American farmers. Because of its excessive use of natural resources, their negative effects on our environment, its mono-cultural production system, and its expensive subsidies—it, the largest, most productive agricultural system in the United States, is in Foley’s view, not sustainable.

3.3  The Land Grant System The greatest, enduring agricultural educational achievement in the United States was passage of the Morrill Act by the US Congress in 1862.20 During the mid- to late 1800s, there was support among progressive farmers for agricultural education and agricultural colleges. Few of the colleges established prior to the Morrill Act achieved the expectations of farmers or politicians, and their failure gave impetus to

114

7  Seeking Common Ground

those in favor of the Morrill Act. Four states had established agricultural colleges prior to its passage. Michigan created the Agricultural College of the State of Michigan in 1855. The Pennsylvania State University began as the Farmer’s High school in 1855. The College of Agricultural Sciences was the first college to award the nation’s first baccalaureate degrees (13) in agriculture in 1861. The University of Maryland was chartered in 1856 as the Maryland Agricultural College. In 1858, the Iowa legislature established the State Agricultural College and Model Farm. It was the first state to accept the provisions of the Morrill Act by action of the legislature on September 11, 1862. The creation of new agricultural college in every state was a radical, new departure from what many believed colleges were supposed to be. It was a major experiment based on hope, not evidence, and the purposes were not clear to all. It was common to hear farmers claim that “book learning” was not a proper or even feasible way to learn how to farm. One learns how to farm from experience. When farmers thought of a college education, they were sure the creators of this bad idea had a hidden goal to lure their young men, the next generation, away from the farm. The experiment was vigorously opposed by the classicists (the educational establishment), who never saw education as having any applied purpose. The classicists were convinced that land-grant institutions would lower educational standards and commercialize education. A significant problem and frequent reason for failure was that those who taught did not have a body of knowledge to teach. There were no trained agricultural teachers, no established agricultural science, or an agricultural research system that asked questions about and stimulated improvement of the practice of agriculture. Finally, there was the economic argument that this experiment was going to be expensive and in fact much more expensive than its supporters had anticipated. It would take public tax money and many objected, as they do now, to any increase in taxes. It is appropriate to begin to discuss whether the land-grant university system has fulfilled its mission. Busch and Lacy21 (p 35) strongly suggested that agricultural scientists failed to comprehend that their science was a social process guided by the shared aims of scientists, which are formulated in the political sphere and are often strongly biased in favor of powerful interests. Questions might include: 1. Has agricultural become a pawn of vested interests and diverted its attention away from the question of what is a good society? 2. Has the land grant system failed to include reverence and deference before nature’s ultimately mysterious forms and processes as Berry22 recommends? 3. Has the system considered Lockeretz’s23 recommendation that highly applied research be removed from the academic domain and treated it as a proper service to the university’s outside constituencies? 4. Has the system responded to Orr’s24 charge that educators have equipped graduates with the tools and technology necessary to enlarge the human empire, but not the wisdom to understand the consequences of doing so?

3  Approaching Moral Issues

115

5. Is it true and if it is, does it matter that our universities and colleges of agriculture have become more entrepreneurial25 and more dependent upon external, sponsored research? 6. Is agricultural research designed primarily to benefit the funding source, the farmer, or the consumer?

3.4  The Classroom: Teaching Agricultural Ethics The entire agricultural community needs to become engaged in discussion of agricultural practices and the inevitable moral dilemmas. The classroom offers an effective starting place. Curricular offerings (focusing on ethical principles, agricultural applications, and expectations of agricultural professionals) are rarely available at public universities. Opportunity for ethics study, which should become a key component of agricultural education because all of agriculture is involved in ethical questions, is not widely available. What should be done? How should it be done? Why should X be done rather than other available options including doing nothing? What stakeholders should be considered? The way agriculture is practiced, development projects are chosen and conducted, and the kind of research and teaching done involves scientific and ethical values and a view of a future we expect, desire, or fear. Because agriculture is the essential human activity, it must rest on a firm ethical foundation that enables rational discussion and resolution of agriculture’s existing and future production and moral dilemmas. That is not to say that feeding the world is an undesirable or questionable agricultural objective. From an ethical perspective, feeding the growing world population is clearly a desirable goal. But it does not absolve the agricultural community from critical, ethical examination of the totality of agriculture’s effects. We are obligated to consider broader ethical concerns and to identify and examine the ethical values that do and should guide the agricultural enterprise. Colleagues in business, engineering, and human and veterinary medicine have responded by integrating ethical considerations into their curriculum. Agriculture lags behind, and change is necessary across all aspects of agricultural activity. We cannot continue to simply say: we are feeding the world and that is enough. There is much to be done, and progress is not likely to be easy or rapid. But we need not be overwhelmed. There is a place26 where we can make progress—the classroom. Curricula in medicine, business, engineering, and veterinary medicine typically include course work in professional and discipline-related ethics. Similar course work (focusing on general ethical principles, applications of the principles to agricultural issues, and ethical expectations of agricultural professionals) is available at only a small minority of land grant and other public universities with agricultural offerings.

116

7  Seeking Common Ground

3.5  Organic Agricultural Programs Organic farming began in the United States in the early 1940s when J.I. Rodale, founded the Rodale Research Institute and Organic Farming and Gardening magazine, which became the primary source of information about what he called “nonchemical” farming. Rodale’s intellectual progenitor, Sir Albert Howard, an English botanist, (1873–1947), is regarded as the founder of the organic farming movement. Howard worked for 25  years as an agricultural investigator in India, first as Agricultural Adviser to States in Central India and Rajputana, then as Director of the Institute of Plant Industry at Indore. His most famous book—An Agricultural Testament27 (1940) is a classic organic farming text. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining soil humus, keeping water in the soil, and the role of mycorrhiza fungi. Another book—Soil and Health28 (1945) claims “The health of soil, plant, animal and man is one and indivisible.” A claim widely supported by the organic agriculture community. All 50 US states had certified organic farms in 2016,29 ranging from one in Alaska to 2530 in California. When Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act in 1990, the United States had fewer than one million acres of certified organic farmland. In 2006, there were 9501 certified organic farms; in 2011, there were 12,880. Organic farming has been one of the fastest-growing segments of US agriculture for over a decade. Consumer demand for organically produced goods has shown double-digit growth during most years since the 1990s. The land area of the United States is 2264 million acres. In 2007, about 51% of the land was used for agriculture which included crops (408 million acres, 18%), grassland, pasture, and range (614 million, 27%) and forests (671 million acres, 30%). In 2016, more than 14,000 organic farms farmed five million acres and increase of 56% from 2011, and up from 3.1 million in 2011. This is a large area but less than 1% of the 915 million acres of US farmland. Organic acreage has increased from 1992 to 2016. Any rapidly growing agricultural system deserves appropriate attention and research. US farms and ranches sold almost $7.6 billion in organic goods in 2016 almost double the $3.5 billion in 2011. In 2018 only ten US universities offered a program that emphasized organic agriculture.30 The arguments against such programs are familiar. Organic agriculture is okay, but it cannot and never will feed the world. Such programs are based on an ideology not on science, which misleads the public and may hinder efforts to achieve agricultural sustainability.31 It is usually noted that because organic produce demands a premium price, it cannot be afforded by the poor. In addition, a fundamental position of organic agriculture is prohibition of synthetic chemical fertilizer and pesticides. Therefore, achieving adequate production is inhibited by low fertility and serious, often uncontrollable, insect, disease, and weed problems.

4  A Few Final Words

117

But consider that research on organic agriculture is in its infancy and is dominated by trial and error and experiential research by agricultural growers, whereas the presently dominant chemical, capital, and energy-intensive system is supported by decades of scientific research. If organic agriculture had similar decades of research that the dominant system has the view of its success and potential would be quite different. It could lead to funding an expansion of research on ecologically sound cropping systems and long-term sustainability

4  A Few Final Words Change is never easy, and radical change, including incorporation of the ethics of agriculture in the curriculum and scientific meetings, will continue to be resisted. But change is what is required if we are going to create a resilient, sustainable agricultural system that meets the undeniable challenge of feeding an ever-growing and more demanding human population that wants what most citizens of the developed world have. We need to find a way to define and debate agriculture’s core principles which will help us understand why agriculture is practiced as it is and what its positive and negative effects are. We were born on this planet, have grown up on it, live on it, land like to believe we know it. We have experienced and shaped this place, our home, and while we may not understand exactly how it works, we want to protect this place. We want to believe that we can, indeed we ought to, preserve it and make it better. The recommendations herein include curricular change, extended conversations and involvement with philosophers, a dramatic change in the paradigm of agricultural practice and research, and the necessity of listening as we learn together. It is not necessary that all involved in agriculture become experts in ethical theory, meta-­ ethical analysis, or case studies. The moral challenge is use the knowledge we already have as we discuss and determine the right thing to do. The discussion and debate should not be perceived as something between two groups or two individuals where one is right and the other is wrong. Both views may be right. We are compelled to enter unfamiliar territory where we must discuss fuzzy, poorly defined issues that have little scientific, factual information.32 Hegel33 says that genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong— they are conflicts between two rights. The tragedy resembles a collision of right things. Debaters may embrace conflicting positions that are equally justified. Resolution will be difficult, perhaps impossible, but it is a goal toward which all engaged in agriculture should work. It is a task wherein those engaged may have to question their system of values, beliefs, and motivations gained through experience and their thoughts about agriculture, the natural world, their fellow human beings, and their sense of the ultimate good.

118

7  Seeking Common Ground

Notes 1. Stegner, W. 1992. Where The Bluebird Sings to The Lemonade Springs  – Living and Writing in the West. Penguin books. New York. 227 pp. 2. Blake, H.E. 2016. Preamble. Orion. January/February. P 1. 3. Capra, F. 1988. The role of physics in the current change of paradigms. Chapter 9, Pp 144–155 in R.  F. Kitchener (Ed.). The Worldview of Contemporary ­Physics: Does it Need a New Paradigm. State University of New York press, Albany, NY. 185pp. 4. Environmental data from Wood, M.C. 2010. You Can’t Negotiate With a Beetle: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age. Natural Resources Journal 50: 167–209. And several other internet sources. 5. Gebhard, E. N. Hagemann, L. Hensler, S. Schweizer, and C. Wember. 2015. Agriculture and Food: Visions to Promote Transformation Driven by Society and Society. Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 28: 497–516. 6. Giraldi, W. 2013. SplendidVision. Orion March/April. Pp 19–25. 7. Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University Of Chicago Press. 264 pp. 2nd Ed. 1970. 8. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by 2030. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/ 25059. 200 pp. 9. Gladwell, M. 1996. My Jaw Dropped. The New Yorker, July 8, p. 32. 10. Olmstead, G. 2018, Wendell Berry’s right kind of farming. The New  York Times October 1. 6pp. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10.01/opinion/wendellberry-agriculture-farm-bill.html. 11. Meino, S. 2018. De duuzaamheid van de Nederlandse landbouw: 1950 – 2015 – 2040. Doctoral dissertation 12. Spaling, H. 2019, Farming God’s way: agronomy and faith contested. Agriculture and Human Values 36(3):411–426. 13. Ehrlich, P. and J. Harte. 2015. Opinion: To feed the world in 2050 will require a global revolution. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences 112(48): 14743–14744. 14. https://www.wfp.org/content/global-report-food-crises-2018. https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/june/who-are-the-world-s-food-insecure-identifying-the-risk-factors-of-food-insecurity-around-the-world. Accessed March 2020. 15. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-inthe-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx#foodsecure. Accessed March 2020. 16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/25/the-shockingnumber-of-americans-who-can’t-cover-a-400-expense/?noredirect=on&utm_ term=.6ea10c8874b5. Accessed July 2018 17. Save food: global initiative on food loss and waste reduction. 2015. Save Food Newsletter. UN Food and Agriculture Organization. November, issue number 49. 8 pp.

4  A Few Final Words

119

18. Foley, J. 2013. It is time to rethink America’s current system. Https://www. scientific American.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn-system. Accessed November 2017. 19. See – http://www.worldofcorn.com/#/. Accessed July 2018. 20. Zimdahl, R.L. 2015. Six Chemicals that Changed Agriculture. Academic Press/ Elsevier. London, UK. 197 pp. (See pages 12–17). 21. Busch, L. and W.B.  Lacy. 1983. Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 303pp. 22. Berry, W. 2017. The Art of Loading Brush – New agrarian writings. Counterpoint Press. Berkeley, CA. 270 pp. 23. Lockeretz, W. 1995. Removing applied agricultural research from the Academy. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 10(1) 19–24. 24. Orr, D. W. 2016. Dangerous years: climate change, the long emergency, and the way forward. Yale University Press, New Haven, CN. 300 pp. 25. Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, C. Gebhardt, and B.R.C. Terra. 2000. The future of the University and the University of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research policy 29: 313–330. 26. Zimdahl, R.L. 2000. Teaching Agricultural Ethics. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 13:229–247. And Zimdahl, R.L. and T.O. Holtzer. 2016. The Ethical Values in the U.S. Agricultural and Food System. Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 29:549–557. 27. Howard, A. 1940. An Agricultural Testament. Oxford University Press, London. 253pp. 28. Both books are available from Amazon. Howard, A. 1940 (UK) 1943 (US). An Agricultural Testament. Soil and Health (originally published in 1945) is available as Howard, A. 2007. The Soil and Health: A Study of Organic Agriculture (Culture of the Land). London Ed. Faber and Faber Ltd. 352pp. and as Howard, A. 2006. The soil and health: A study of organic agriculture (with an introduction by W. Berry). Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. 307pp. Accessed October 2016. 29. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/organic-production.aspx#25766. Accessed January 2016  – and  – https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2019/01/10/organic-farming-is-on-the-rise-in-the-u-s/. Accessed May 2019. 30. https://www.thebalancesmb.com/organic-agriculture-college-programs-2538094. Accessed June 2018. 31. McGuire,A.M. 2017. Agricultural Science and Organic Farming: Time to Change Our Trajectory. Agricultural and Environmental Letters. A commentary published online November 30. Four pages. 32. Ruehr, T.  A. 1994. Teaching Agricultural Ethics. Chap. 7  – Pp. 55–68. in Agricultural Ethics: Isues for the 21st century. American Society of Agronomy Special Publication Number 57. ASA, Madison, WI. 68pp. 33. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1790–1831) German philosopher was an important figure of German idealism. See Roche, M.W. 2006. Introduction to Hegel’s theory of tragedy. PhaenEx 1, No.2 (fall/winter):11–20.

Chapter 8

Ethical Puzzles

Agriculture’s moral dilemmas can be illustrated in several ways. I have chosen to illustrate them in a series of ethical puzzles/case studies of real or potential agricultural problems each of which has a moral dimension. Only fictitious people’s names have been used. Six of the eight cases are followed by an analysis from a utilitarian perspective that supports and denies the legitimacy of an action and an alternative analysis of support or denial based on a Kantian/deontological argument. Each case is independent of the others. Utilitarianism was developed by the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and elaborated by John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). It judges actions by their consequences and tendency to create the greatest balance of happiness or pleasure over pain and suffering for all affected by an act. The assumption is that all humans share a desire to avoid pain and have pleasure and happiness, which is good in and of itself—it is not necessarily good for anything tangible. All affected by an act are given equal consideration. The alternative analysis which supports and denies the legitimacy of the act is based on a demanding ethical standard—the categorical imperative—developed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). The categorical imperative is: “Act only on the maxim through which you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” These two accepted ethical theories are included to illustrate how one can begin to discuss agriculture’s moral dilemmas. One could also consider resolving agriculture’s moral dilemmas through discussion of ethical egoism, rights theory, social contract theory, or virtue ethics. The two ethical theories illustrate how to begin to discuss agriculture’s moral dilemmas. It is not the intent to resolve the issues, only to show ways to begin the discussion based on finding an answer to the question: How do you decide what is the right thing to do? But one might ask: What is the right answer? What should I do? Moral philosophical theories do not and should not be expected to tell us the right answer. They show us how to think about and progress toward an answer. Ethical theories provide assistance and are particularly valuable when those discussing the issue about what is right and wrong disagree. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. L. Zimdahl, Agricultural Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48935-9_8

121

122

8  Ethical Puzzles

The titles of the eight puzzles and the appropriate arguments follow: To Spray or Not To Spray The Utility of Inaction Family Farms—Agriculture and Urbanization Food Aid The Land Egg Machines The Legitimate Use of Water Possums

1  Ethical Puzzle Response Guide1 The questions below are provided to guide discussion of any of the puzzles that follow. They are not the only questions that could be asked. 1. What ethical question posed in this case must be answered? Answers should include a normative word such as should or ought. For example, students should not cheat on examinations. 2. Other questions relevant to most discussions of ethical issues include: (a) Are there relevant environmental, technological, economic, regulatory, or cultural aspects of the puzzle? (b) Who are the stakeholders? (c) Who is affected by the dilemma portrayed? Who is and who may be harmed? (d) Who will benefit from the present situation and who will benefit from the solution proposed? (e) What influence will aspects of common morality (do no harm, promote the common good, promote justice for all) have on your solution? 3 . Give your first answer to the question posed in questions 1 and/or 2. 4. Give three reasons to justify your answer. 5. List three facts that support your answer. For example, allowing small farms to be driven out of business is not good for the health of the land. 6. Provide one moral premise to support your answer. For example, we ought to protect small farms because… 7. Using at least one factual premise and at least one moral principle, construct a moral argument that leads logically to your answer. 8. List two objections to your argument and respond to each objection.

1  This guide is adapted from Comstock, G. (Ed.). 2002. Life Science Ethics. Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA. P. 342 to 343.

1  Ethical Puzzle Response Guide

123

1.1  Case Study 1: To Spray or Not To Spray? Frank Exman has used herbicides on his farm since the mid-1980s. He is aware of the public’s concerns. He knows about and agrees with the agricultural chemical industry’s claim that very few scientific studies have proven that any pesticide is harmful to human health, when the pesticide is used in accordance with label directions. His years of farming experience have demonstrated that herbicides reduce the need for labor, increase crop yield, and increase income. Herbicides were used to manage weeds each year and Frank was up-to-date on what herbicides would control the expected weeds best in his crops and on the best methods to apply the herbicides safely. Frank thought of himself as an environmentally aware farmer. He often claims that he is as good an environmentalist as the members of the local Audubon society, many of whom come to the wetland area he maintains on his farm to watch birds. Frank owns and farms 2500 acres in Northeastern Colorado and grows about 700 acres of corn each year. He also grows barley, pinto beans, and sugar beets. His farm is located near the South Platte River, and most of the cropped land is irrigated by center pivot sprinklers that draw their water from wells. His weed management program has successfully controlled the annual broadleaved and annual grass weeds that infest his crops. However, he has not been able to control Canada thistle, a perennial broadleaved weed that increases in abundance each year. Each year patches of Canada thistle expand, and the yield of crops in the patches declines. After consultation with his County Extension Agent and a weed specialist from Colorado State University, Frank decided to begin a program to minimize the Canada thistle infestation. The program will be a herbicide intensive because he, and those he consulted, are sure it is the best option. An intensive chemical program may force him to abandon what he knows is good (reducing pesticide use) to embrace what he thinks will make him secure (high yield). Embarking on the intensive chemical program may mean losing something that is essential to being a responsible, environmentally sensitive farmer. He knows what will be sacrificed and chooses to do so. The primary elements of his program are as follows: He will shift most of his farm to no-tillage farming. That means he will not plow the soil and will plant each crop in the stubble or residue of the preceding crop. This technique has the advantage of keeping cover on the ground most of the time and thereby reducing soil erosion. The lack of tillage also means that he will not be spreading the rhizomes and roots of Canada thistle to other areas. He will shift the fields with the worst infestation of Canada thistle from pinto beans to a small grain such as wheat or barley. Small grain crops will grow well, but the profit will be less than from beans. The reason for the change is that wheat and barley will tolerate postemergence application of the available herbicide that controls Canada thistle best, corn and beans will not. Frank will use clopyralid at the recommended rate of 2 to 4 pints of formulated product/acre to control Canada thistle in barley and wheat. He will also use aminopyralid (Milestone) at 5 to 7 ounces per acre in dense stands of Canada thistle on non-cropland. The program will decrease but not eliminate his crop rotation options.

124

8  Ethical Puzzles

1.1.1  Background Information Clopyralid is a pyridinecarboxylic or picolinic acid. It is absorbed within 24 h by foliage and roots and moves through the plant to areas of high metabolic activity (shoot and root growing points). It acts as a persistent plant growth regulator, the level of which the plant cannot control. Clopyralid is weakly bound to soil and leaches moderately although it can leach below the level of plant root growth. It may persist from 12 to 70 days depending on temperature and soil moisture conditions. Clopyralid soil residues may injure beans planted 1  year after application. Clopyralid is a general use herbicide and no special use restrictions apply. Aminopyralid is a carboxylic acid available for use only on non-cropland. It is a systemic, mobile, growth regulator herbicide which is readily absorbed through leaves stems and roots. Its half-life averages 76 days. Because of its low use rate, it’s soil life and leachability are not of great concern. It is very effective for control of Canada thistle. Frank knows that the program will have to continue for at least 5 years to obtain a 90% reduction (but not eradication) of Canada thistle. However, Frank and those he has consulted believe that if he uses the manufacturer’s recommended herbicide application rate that is permitted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved herbicide label and recommended by CSU agricultural faculty, he will minimize the problem within a few years. The main problem Frank faces is that his neighbors and the local Audubon Society are opposed to his Canada thistle management program for two reasons. Audubon members have noticed in their annual Christmas bird count that bird numbers on Frank’s wetlands and on the 50 acres of wetland Audubon owns adjacent to and downwind from Frank’s farm have been steadily declining. CSU scientists have found some evidence of a link between pesticide use and bird survival. Audubon members have proposed that Frank cease all pesticide use for the next 3 years so they can determine if bird numbers increase. Secondly, very low but detectable residues of some insecticides and herbicides (including clopyralid) have been found in several wells in the area that are used to irrigate crops and for human and livestock drinking water. No physical harm has been linked to the presence of any pesticide in drinking water, but many local residents are concerned. Frank wants to solve his production problem in the most economically efficient and efficacious way available to him. The Audubon Society members do not want him to spray any herbicide at all, even though they suspect the Canada thistle that has been invading their property is coming from Frank’s upwind farm. Frank and members of the Audubon society have agreed to submit their respective concerns to binding arbitration by a panel they have selected. The panel members will be a weed scientist from CSU, a natural resources biologist from CSU, a member of the Audubon Society, Frank’s neighbor, George Ahrens, a farmer, and Ms. Nadine Ward, a health-care worker and local resident who will serve as Chair of the panel. Pesticides of all kinds have been used in agriculture for more than 50 years with varying degrees of success, but, in general, they accomplish their agricultural

3  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

125

mission—to reduce the population of insects, plant pathogens, or weeds (that humans decide are pests) in crops. There is a broad range of chemical families, modes of action, and target species, but there is one property that all pesticides share—the ability to provoke strong emotions. Those in favor of pesticides argue that they promote pest-free crops, prevent loss of stored agricultural produce, reduce the population of human and animal disease carrying insects, reduce the need for farm labor to weed crops, and keep food costs low. However, there are equally strong arguments against continued pesticide use. Others argue that in spite of their benefits, the known and unknown detrimental effects on the environment, nontarget species, and human health are too great. Disadvantages of pesticides include their tendency to persist in the environment (frequently cited as an advantage because it reduces repetitive efforts to control a pest), harm to nontarget species including beneficial insects and soil microorganisms, transport through air to unknown sites, and contamination of ground and surface water. Even though pesticides have been used for many years in agriculture and in urban areas, the public’s view of real or perceived dangers led to activity in many urban areas to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides on home lawns. Environmental groups are concerned about large-scale application of pesticides in agriculture and movement of the pesticide by wind and water erosion to other sites. The general public is aware of many potential dangers and concerned about what many perceive as indiscriminate use. According to the US Department of Agriculture, pesticide use in agriculture increased from one million pounds in 1945 to almost a billion in 1997 and almost 5 billion today. 1.1.2  Reasonable Ethical Arguments Below is a brief outline of the reasons that might be offered for and against action in this case by one that favors and one that does not favor a utilitarian position and by one that favors and one that does not favor an alternative moral view. A Utilitarian Argument in Favor of Herbicide Use Utilitarian theory states that when one is confronted with a choice of action, one ought to act in such a way that the act promotes the greatest amount of happiness for all those affected by the act. Overall happiness can be calculated by measuring the amount of pleasure and pain that an action produces. In this case, Frank has to choose between initiating an intensive herbicide program in which he regularly sprays Canada thistle, or not initiating the program. A utilitarian could offer several reasons why the greatest amount of overall happiness will be achieved if Frank initiates the program. Frank’s less productive land that is infested with Canada thistle could be put to better use if sprayed. More crops would be produced, which would

126

8  Ethical Puzzles

provide more food for people. The greatest overall happiness will be achieved when more hungry people are fed. By spraying, Frank would not need to hire extra farm labor to weed crops. Consequently, food costs to consumers could remain low, and overall happiness will be achieved because people will have lower food prices. By spraying, Frank is able to continue to produce crops in a manner that provides profit for his family farm. Not only is Frank’s happiness dependent on his ability to continue farming, but his family’s and (to some extent) his community’s happiness depends on his ability to stay in business. Frank, his family, and his community will experience a lot of pleasure if Frank is able to keep his farm; if Frank loses the farm, much pain will be experienced by him, his family, and local businesses. The greatest overall happiness will be achieved if Frank is able to stay in business. Who loses if Frank sprays? What pain or displeasure will arise if Frank initiates an intensive herbicide application program? If Frank sprays, a few nontarget species of plants and animals may be harmed. However, the affected nontarget plants do not feel pain or pleasure. Thus, they cannot “care” about what happens to them. What is best for these nontarget plants is of little concern to the utilitarian. Additionally, if Frank sprays, a few animals might suffer from exposure to the herbicide. However, such pain experienced by these animals (and the amount of displeasure that humans feel when these animals are harmed) does not outweigh the amount of pleasure that Frank, his family, needy consumers, and hungry people will experience with Frank’s more productive crop. There will be some runoff of herbicide into nearby streams, and possibly some herbicide will enter the local aquifer. It is important to note that the agriculture chemical industry claims that no scientific study has proven that any pesticide (clopyralid included) is harmful to human health, when the pesticide is used in accordance with label directions. Effects on human health due to air and groundwater contamination are purely speculative. A Utilitarian Argument Against Herbicide Use A utilitarian could argue that the greatest amount of happiness will be achieved if Frank does not initiate the program. Herbicide application will increase the amount of environmental pollution and will kill or harm nontarget species. Area streams will become more contaminated and will be unable to support many forms of life. An unhealthy ecosystem will cause many sentient animals high on the food chain to suffer sickness or starvation. Not spraying will increase the overall happiness of all those actually or potentially affected within the ecosystem. One of the fundamental requirements for human happiness is good health. Healthy ecosystems are essential to human happiness. Healthy ecosystems produce healthy food for humans. Clean aquifers provide clean drinking water. In a polluted environment with unhealthy people, humans cannot live happy, flourishing lives. Thus, the greatest overall happiness can be achieved by limiting the amount of environmental pollution. Not spraying will increase the overall happiness of all affected species. The natural world offers a wide variety of recreation activities that provide pleasure for humans, e.g., nature viewing, hiking, swimming, and fishing. None of these can be enjoyed

3  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

127

well in a polluted environment. Not spraying will promote environmental health and make recreational opportunities possible and pleasurable. The greatest overall happiness will be achieved if additional pollutants are not added to the environment. By not initiating the herbicide-intensive program, the environment will be healthier, which will result in greater happiness overall. A Deontological Argument in Favor of Herbicide Use The argument could begin by evaluating the rightness or wrongness of Frank Exman’s decision to initiate an intensive herbicide application plan by conceiving the maxim that Frank used to act. Such a maxim might be, “It is morally permissible to initiate an intensive herbicide application plan in order to attempt to control Canada thistle.” Next, the maxim would have to be tested by Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Could the maxim, “It is morally permissible to initiate an intensive herbicide application plan in order to control Canada thistle,” be universalized? What if every farmer with a Canada thistle problem acted in the same way that Frank did? Would that be possible? Yes, Frank’s maxim could be universalized, and thus one could argue that Frank’s spraying is morally permissible. Frank’s maxim is not self-contradicting and rational. If every farmer that had fields menaced by Canada thistle were to spray as Frank did, the system would still continue to function. Every farmer could apply the herbicide, the Canada thistle population would decrease, and crop production would increase. Yes, the environment might be slightly degraded due to herbicide contamination, but not enough to cause Frank’s maxim to be self-defeating. In short, every farmer could adhere to Frank’s new herbicide application plan, and the world could continue as before. Rationally, Frank’s maxim could be universalized. A Deontological Argument Against Herbicide Use An alternative argument could begin by evaluating the rightness or wrongness of Frank Exman’s decision to initiate an intensive herbicide application plan by conceiving the maxim that guided Frank’s act. Such a maxim might be, “It is morally permissible to initiate an intensive herbicide application plan to control Canada thistle.” Generally understood this maxim could be interpreted as “It is morally permissible to apply herbicides to decrease a weed’s population.” Next, the maxim would have to be tested by the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Could the maxim, “It is morally permissible to apply herbicides to control weeds,” be universalized? What if every farmer with weed problems acted in the same way that Frank did? Would that be possible? One could argue that Frank’s action does not pass the test of universalization and is thus irrational and immoral—if human health is a necessary value that needs sustaining. If every farmer sprayed his or her fields as Frank Exman did, the

128

8  Ethical Puzzles

environment would not be able to sustain such an effect and still be able to support healthily human life. Many argue against herbicide use for this reason: such use is not sustainable and thus self-defeating. By applying herbicides, the environment becomes polluted to a point that human health becomes affected. Surface runoff into streams, contamination of nontarget species, and leaching into community aquifers create an environment that is unhealthy for humans. We need clean food and water to support healthy human life. With such intensive herbicide application, humans inevitably end up ingesting such contaminants in their food and water supplies. Furthermore, it could be argued that herbicide application, in the long run, does not solve the weed problem. With continued application, many weeds will probably develop resistance to herbicides. Other, perhaps more environmentally unfriendly herbicides might have to be used. Thus, the one could argue that it is irrational to continue trying to solve the weed problem in a way that, in the long run, only facilitates the development of weeds that resist herbicides. In the long run, herbicide usage doesn’t seem to be a rational solution to the problem of weed pests. Applying herbicides in the way Frank Exman did is not only self-defeating in the long run, but is also in opposition to one of our most fundamentally held values—human health. When farmers apply herbicides in such a manner, they threaten their health and the health of others. We eat food in order to sustain our bodies—to keep us healthy. Yet, producing our food in a way that pollutes the environment we depend on defeats our initial purpose. By using herbicides as Frank Exman chooses to, we act in a way that contradicts our fundamental value of health. Therefore, accordingly the action is self-defeating and, thus, immoral.

1.2  Case Study 2: The Utility of Inaction Thomas Stroud was a successful farmer who had inherited a large (1200 acres), productive farm from his father. The farm was located amid some of the richest farmland in the Midwest. The outbuildings were sturdy, always freshly painted, and almost extravagant. The large and magnificent house Tom’s father built used very skilled craftsmen. It was the kind of a house one would expect to see on a calendar celebrating rural America. Much of the farm was wooded and the habitat for numerous wild species. There were several streams that ran through the acreage. Often they would overflow during heavy spring rains, but Tom never lost crops to such floods because the flooding never extended beyond the broad band of countless trees and lush vegetation that lined the banks. Tom’s first wife died. The couple had been childless. Tom remarried Charlotte, a divorcee with a young son, Gordon, who was 11 when Tom and Charlotte married. Tom took the necessary steps to adopt Gordon as his own child. They lived in the charming, graceful farmhouse. Gordon worked side by side with his stepfather and was eager to learn all he could about farming and about the unique traits of their acreage. Gordon adored farming and always praised his mother for choosing a new

3  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

129

husband who could teach him the ways of agriculture. It was always assumed that Gordon would inherit the farm after his mother and stepfather died. Although Gordon loved the work and gradually took more and more responsibility, it was no secret that he and his stepfather were not especially close. They respected and liked one another, but Gordon always longed for a close relationship with his natural father. But none of the difficulties in the relationship prevented Tom and Gordon from becoming very good partners and making a good living. Eventually Tom’s health began to fail. In a reversal of roles, Tom became Gordon’s assistant and took the secondary role that Gordon had occupied while growing up and learning how to farm. Tom was diagnosed with progressive angina. As his health deteriorated and his strength eroded, Tom’s life seemed more and more finite and fleeting to him. Tom became more and more religious and devoted to a televangelist whose ambitions for a larger and larger following seemed unlimited. The televangelist traveled the country, held huge rallies in major cities in large arenas, and filled each to capacity. He preached a literal interpretation of scripture. Redemption from sin was a constant theme. He began an ambitious campaign to fund and build a religious theme park. The theme park was to feature recreational facilities, a large hotel, two golf courses, swimming pools, a water park, etc. Programs, conferences, and intense bible studies would be part of the lure. Families could spend a week at the park; everyone would find a pursuit. All of it was billed as a way of glorifying God, something Tom wished he had done in his younger years. The location of the theme park was not determined, but the televangelist promised Tom that every step in the process of finding a site and signing construction contracts would be relayed to Tom and shared with him. Tom regularly sent money to the televangelist; much of it was earmarked for the theme park. The attraction of the televangelist was not shared by Gordon. Gordon and his mother were mainstream Presbyterians and attended the local Presbyterian church with some frequency and always on Christmas and Easter. The small town nearby wanted to grow but only under a comprehensive plan that would prevent a strain on services and prevent sprawl. There were some small industries in addition to agriculture. Those small industries and the agricultural businesses meant that it was something of a commercial center for the county. It was also the county seat. The interstate was not far and the railroad came through. All of this attracted the attention of the state which was looking for a new site to build a very large penitentiary. The penitentiary would be built under a contract to a private corporation that specialized in building and operating penitentiaries. One of the ideal locations was Tom Stroud’s farm. Hence Tom was approached about selling out to the private corporation. The state had to give approval to any site selected. The state board of prisons and the private corporation agreed that the Stroud Farm was their first choice for the new penitentiary. The trouble was that the corporation wanted to buy a portion of the farm, not the entire acreage. Tom refused. If he was going to sell the farm and totally retire, he did not want to be selling it in small parcels.

130

8  Ethical Puzzles

Gordon was bitterly disappointed that his stepfather was contemplating selling the farm. Gordon and his mother had assumed that he would continue farming the acreage after his parents were dead. If the farm were sold, there would be a considerable amount of money. Gordon licked his wounds by telling himself that if he did not inherit the farm, he would inherit the proceeds from selling the farm and he could buy another farm in the county. It became clear that one of Tom’s motives for selling the farm was to be able to donate the proceeds of the sale to the televangelist and not leave a large inheritance to either Charlotte or Gordon. It became obvious that Gordon and his mother could be left with no acreage and a token amount as their inheritance from Tom. Gordon discovered that Tom was already negotiating with the televangelist and the televangelist’s tax attorney. In the meantime, the state and private corporation kept negotiating for the farm. Tom remained resolute about selling it as one acreage. The news of the negotiations spread. The reaction among many was unmistakable. Converting the Stroud Farm to a penitentiary and grounds was not wanted by the neighboring farmers. No one wants a penitentiary in the backyard. A new road would be built from the town to the penitentiary for service trucks, supply trucks, penitentiary employees, and state employees who would monitor penitentiary operations. The new road was likely to attract small malls, fast food outlets, etc., at the edge of town. They would be located along the new road to attract and service the traffic between the town and the penitentiary. Gordon knew that the sale of the land to the state and private corporation would diminish the value of the neighbor’s farms because penitentiaries have a depressing affect on surrounding land values. Next, the presence of the penitentiary would bring psychological fear to the neighbors, many of whom had children. None of the neighbors and few of the town’s residents wanted the new road and the accompanying growth that would rapidly occur as penitentiary employees settled where once there was a stable population. The number of businesses would increase; some of them might destroy established businesses. For example, new supermarkets and a Home Depot would take business away from smaller, established, locally owned grocery and hardware stores. Gordon tried to keep close watch on his stepfather’s thinking and negotiations. Much of what he learned was from his mother. Tom was more willing to confide in her than in Gordon, but his mother shared with Gordon. Finally the private corporation agreed to negotiate to buy the entire acreage. Tom had an attorney to negotiate the price, but the negotiations were slow because the state was overseeing the process and required reports and approval from various of its own agencies. The televangelist kept encouraging Tom to proceed rapidly with the sale and to draw up a new will. Tom was offered access to the televangelist’s own attorneys. Needless to say, the televangelist would be the beneficiary of such a will. One day Gordon drove his pickup to a far field to repair a baler. Tom remained in the house because he was tired. Finally Tom decided that he needed to see how Gordon was doing. He had not abandoned his role of advising Gordon. He loaded his portable oxygen tank into his own pickup and began driving along the narrow lane that led to the field where Gordon was working. Gordon saw him coming. As

3  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

131

Tom’s pickup approached the field, Gordon noticed that it seemed to weave a bit. He watched. The pickup suddenly went into the ditch that paralleled the lane. It did not turn over, but the wheels on the right side were in the ditch. Gordon walked to the truck. He could not see Tom. Gordon approached the driver’s window and found Tom slumped over, his head on the passenger’s seat, his feet still at the pedals. He was gasping for breath. He always carried nitroglycerine pills. Dissolving one under his tongue was the quickest and most effective way to treat an attack. Tom fumbled for those pills but was unable to retrieve them from his pocket. It would have been an easy task for Gordon. The oxygen mask and tank were readily at hand, but Gordon made no effort to give Tom the mask or hold it to Tom’s face. If the mask had been placed and a nitroglycerine pill put in Tom’s mouth, all Gordon needed to do was to open the valve on the tank. Instead he simply asked, “What’s wrong, Tom?” The question was rhetorical…Gordon knew what was happening. Gordon also had a cell telephone and could have called 911. If Tom had taken a pill and had oxygen, he would have stabilized for the time that it would take an ambulance to reach the farm. If nothing else, Gordon could have stabilized his father and driven him to the hospital. Gordon did nothing. In fact, he stepped away from the pickup for a few moments and made sure that his mother was not a witness to his inaction. Later, when asked, he said that by the time he reached the pickup his father was dead. Tom died in the pickup, but in fact death occurred about ten minutes after Gordon reached the truck. The negotiations with the penitentiary contractors and with the state were ended. The prior will, still in effect, was probated. The drafts of a new will, drawn up by attorneys for the televangelist, were never finalized. Gordon’s mother, now a widow, and Gordon inherited the farm. The televangelist ceased his, fully aware of the widow’s and Gordon’s reaction to him. He did not even send an emissary to Tom’s funeral. Gordon continued to farm. The penitentiary was eventually built elsewhere in another county. The neighbors continue to farm with confidence that someday their children would farm the same fields and enjoy an increase in the property values. The road was never widened. The forested areas on what is now Gordon’s farm continue to be habitat for wildlife. The town did not suffer from rapid growing pains because of new employees at the penitentiary. There was no rush of new businesses into the town. There were no sprawling housing developments to house newcomers to the town. When Gordon thinks about Tom’s death, he reminds himself that the old man was close to death anyway. After all, Gordon did nothing to bring on Tom’s death. 1.2.1  Reasonable Ethical Arguments Below is a brief outline of the reasons that might be offered for and against action in this case by one that favors and one that does not favor the utilitarian position and by one that favors and one that does not favor an alternative moral view.

132

8  Ethical Puzzles

A Utilitarian Argument in Favor of Inaction Utilitarians strive to maximize pleasure or happiness for all of those affected by an act. Utilitarians reason that humans strive to be free from pain. Therefore when making a moral decision, utilitarians look to maximize the amount of happiness that will result from an act. Happiness/pleasure is defined as the freedom from pain or suffering and is the ultimate or intrinsic good for a utilitarian. A utilitarian would not rush to condemn Gordon’s inaction toward his father, but would look at the outcome as a result of Gordon’s not helping Tom. Tom’s decision to sell his land had far-reaching consequences in the community, which were larger than Gordon’s and his mother’s welfare alone. When Tom decided to sell his land in order to raise money for a state penitentiary, it was an unpopular decision with the small town and the community of nearby farmers. There are several reasons why the community was opposed to having a penitentiary in their backyard. It would disrupt the small town feel of their home, and the addition of roads and industry associated with the penitentiary would surely lower property values and damage locally owned businesses that would have difficulty competing with the corporate chains and grocery stores. A utilitarian would argue that Tom’s decision to sell his property for a state penitentiary would cause suffering to many people in the community, and therefore Gordon made the most ethical decision. A Utilitarian Argument Against Inaction At the time of Tom’s death, Gordon seemed to be thinking only of his and his mother’s happiness. His focus on himself violates a fundamental principle of utilitarianism in that one must consider all who will be affected by an act. Because utilitarians are only concerned with the outcome and not the intentions of an action, it makes no difference whether Gordon was concerned with the welfare of only himself, or if he were considering the welfare of the entire community when he decided not to aid Tom. The outcome for Gordon and the entire community seems to be a favorable. Gordon gets to keep the farm and live out the livelihood he has always wanted. The penitentiary would surely be built elsewhere ensuring that the community remained as it had been. Their property did not lose its value, and there is even habitat on Gordon’s farm for wildlife to flourish. It seems that the brief time Gordon suffered was worth the benefits that many people—some of them wholly unconnected to Gordon—enjoyed. However, Gordon was clearly not sure that his mother would have made the same decision. Gordon’s continuing guilt about his inaction may haunt him forever. A Deontological Argument Against Inaction Gordon’s inaction to save his stepfather was morally wrong for several reasons. A rational agent has a duty to adhere to the good will. The good will is good in itself. It needs nothing further to justify its goodness. As rational agents we have a duty to act

4  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

133

in accordance with the good will. The worth of a moral action is based on the agent’s intention at the time of the action, not solely on the consequences of the action. There are two principles from which we derive our duties and obligation to the good will. The first is the categorical imperative which states that we should, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” and the second formulation of the categorical imperative stated specifically in reference to persons, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.” Both of these maxims pertain to the moral wrong in Gordon’s case of inaction. To implement the categorical imperative Gordon’s maxim would sound something like, “It is morally justifiable to stand passively by and watch a sick person die when you can easily take measures to prevent their death.” If this maxim is universalized we see that it is not a viable moral law. As a universal moral law, then it would follow that if Gordon were having a heart attack and someone was nearby that could easily help him take a nitroglycerine pill, they would be morally justified in standing by and watching Gordon die. I doubt that Gordon would want to live in a society where it would be morally permissible for this to happen to him. Humans have intrinsic moral worth they should only be seen as ends, never as means to an end. When Gordon stands passively by and watches his father die, Gordon is using his stepfather as a means to an end. If his father dies before the will is legally amended, then Gordon and his mother’s future livelihood is secured. He will be able to keep the inheritance money and the farm, which he is eager to take over and continue farming. He will also be saving the community from the impending prison, which may alter the quality of life of their community. From Gordon’s point of view, his father’s death seems only to produce good consequences. But Gordon’s inaction is clearly immoral because of the lack of respect he exhibits for another person’s life. It is clear that Gordon’s inaction was a means to an end he wanted. When Gordon passively watches his father gasping for his last breaths, he is doing so with the intention of reaping the benefits of his stepfather’s death. He is consciously choosing not to respect life. By allowing Tom to live, Gordon would have done a morally commendable action because he chose to adhere to his duty to the moral law instead of doing what he wanted to do. There is no moral worth in doing something that you already want to do and will benefit from. If you want to do the right thing then that is good, but it is not morally praise worthy. The definition of a proper moral action is when one consciously chooses to do something, not because one wants to do, but because it is the right thing to do. Gordon clearly had an opportunity to do what is morally right.

1.3  C  ase Study 3: Family Farms—Agriculture and Urbanization A healthy farm culture can be based only upon familiarity and can grow only among a people soundly established upon the land; it nourished and safeguards human intelligence of the earth that no amount of technology can satisfactorily replace. The growth of such a

134

8  Ethical Puzzles

culture was once a strong Possibility in the farm communities of this country. We now have only the sad remnants of those communities. If we allow another generation to pass without doing what is necessary to enhance and embolden the possibility now perishing with them, we will lose it altogether. And then we will not only invoke calamity – we will deserve it. Berry, W. 1977. The Unsettling of America  – Culture and Agriculture. New  York, NY. Avon Pub. P. 43–44.

George Schmidt was a tenth-generation farmer and the third generation of his family to farm in Colorado. His grandfather had begun crop farming in another part of Colorado and lost the farm in the great depression of the 1930s. Afterward, George’s father and uncle moved further west in Colorado and began farming. They had abundant farming experience and owned about 250 acres on the home farm. Each year they rented additional farm land in the area. The capital to buy more farmland was never available. On the rented land, the brothers grew crops on a crop share (2/3 to the farmer and 1/3 to the owner) or cash rental basis. Successful crop farming on their own and rented land made it possible to grow the feed for their dairy herd of more than 60 milk cows and to raise cash crops such as pinto beans, onions, and sugar beets. George went to the local high school, was very active in 4-H and the Future Farmers of America (FFA), and became State President of the Young Farmers Education Association. He helped create Colorado’s Agricultural Leadership Program. He was a good farmer who prided himself on regularly growing nearly 200 bushels of corn per acre. He, like all the farmers he knew and borrowed large sums of money from the bank each year, and it was a source of pride that he always paid the debt in full and on time. All the farmers George knew had to make a profit from farming. None were independently wealthy. But for George and the farmers in his area, farming was not just a business; farming was a freely chosen way of life that allowed self-realization, conserved resources, and provided a reasonable living.2 It offered a desirable lifestyle, freedom, and a good place to live—despite the low to moderate income. They never had to punch someone else’s time clock. Farming, they believed, was a way to contribute time and labor to produce food for people: an important, essential activity and a source of self-fulfillment to the farmer. George and his friends contrasted their farming style with industrial agriculture, which they regarded as an occupation that invested capital that served as a means to achieve an ends the investor defined. The ends/the goals were frequently not the ends traditional farmers emphasized (see footnote 2). George and his farmer friends were all efficient farmers. They were regularly the top producers (yield of crops/acre or production of milk/cow) in their area. They farmed for the lifestyle, not just for a profit, but it was a source of frustration to George and his colleagues that few of them owned most of the land they farmed and their income remained low. Land, the essential farming resource, was expensive, and most was owned by speculators or the children of farmers who had died or 2  Blatz, C. V. 1994. Coming Full Circle: Ethical issues in traditional and industrialized agriculture. Pp 33–42 in Agricultural Ethics: Issues For The 21st Century. American Society of Agronomy Special Publication No. 57. Madison, WI. 79 pp.

4  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

135

retired. The farmer’s children had gone off to become doctors, engineers, or professors and knew the land’s value and were holding it for future gain while renting it for a small annual fee to farmers like George. The farmers provided seed, fertilizer, pest control, and harvest, while the owner provided irrigation water and the land. It was not a bad deal for either party, but the farmers could not afford to expand the acreage they owned. George and his wife, Sally, regularly sought advice from the County Extension staff, specialists at the nearby state agricultural university, crop consultants, and agribusiness sales people. They tried to keep up with new practices and techniques and used what they considered to be the best production practices. George and Sally were also good citizens. George had served two terms on the local school board, was an elder in the church, and regularly participated in church governance at the local and state level. Sally participated in numerous volunteer activities and was active on the local hospital governing board. George and Sally (who had not been raised on a farm) were feeling other pressures. The freedom and pleasures of farming were still tangible, but the system was not working the way it always had for George’s ancestors. Because of urban development, less land was available to rent, and more miles had to be traveled to farm the land. Their income was adequate but not rising. Farming was still a pleasure, but while profit might be considered secondary to lifestyle, everyone wants a decent income. They had children and wanted to provide a good life for their children. Farming was a good life, but there was too little income. Wheat was selling for what it sold for during World War II, or less. Milk production was up primarily due to the use of BST (bovine somatotropin—a natural hormone in dairy cows), but milk prices were down. Land rent was stable but supply was decreasing. George had participated in the state’s agricultural leadership program, and one of the things he learned was that he did not have to be in production agriculture to make a difference. There were other agriculturally related things he could do. Farming was all he had done and was what he knew best. George and Sally were struggling with the decision of whether or not to sell the farm to a land developer who would destroy the farm buildings and grow houses where they once grew crops and milked cows. They knew they would receive a lot of money for the land they owned but they would have to leave the farm and watch it in George’s words, “be destroyed.” By all measures but one (income), the Schmidts were successful farmers. They produced large quantities of high-quality feed for a productive dairy herd that, in turn, produced a steady supply of high quality milk. They practiced environmentally responsible agriculture. Good citizenship with their farming neighbors, in their community, and their region was the way a farm life was lived. They contributed to and preserved the values and culture that Americans think are important to a good society. George was conversant with the latest in farming practice and technology and he tried to use the best technology, but their farm income was not sufficient to pay the necessary farm expenses and support the lifestyle they wanted. They decided they had to sell the farm and give up the way of life they loved. The reason for their failure to make enough income was not their lack of skill or dedication to farming. The reason was that since 1984 the farm value of food has fallen by more than 35%. Today, less than 21 cents of every dollar spent on domestically

136

8  Ethical Puzzles

produced food in the United States goes to farmers, the rest (79+ cents) goes to middlemen and marketers. A typical plate of food in the United States has accumulated between 1300 and 1500 miles from its source to the plate. On average, each food item travels 50% farther than it did in 1979. Farms across the country are getting larger, and control of the nation’s farmland is being concentrated in fewer hands. 1.3.1  Who’s Involved in Agriculture The following people were directly or indirectly affected or had a view on the situation the Schmidts faced. Consider your view of the reasons for each person’s position and try to derive the ethical basis of each position. Kevin Hartzog, a successful real estate entrepreneur, brokered a land deal that created the housing development and shopping area where the Schmidt’s farm used to be. His view is a debased version of the golden rule—he who has the gold makes the rules. Kevin thinks that land should be put to its highest and best use. His utilitarian view is that the use that serves the most people and brings the greatest benefit to the community is the best use. No community can afford to ignore opportunities to develop its land to serve the people’s needs. John Wallace is one of two Republican county commissioners (the third is a Democrat). John was born and raised on a dairy farm and knows how important the dairy industry is to his county. Local dairies supply nearly all of the milk and several other dairy products consumed in the county’s two major cities. Several families owe their steady income to work in milk-related industries. John knows that if the Schmidt’s leave dairy farming, it will not affect the county’s milk supply because other dairies will increase production. Use of BST is common and John feels the hormone’s use has, in fact, released land from agriculture for other uses. Ralph Visotto broadcasts a segment of the local and national evening news and frequently highlights the magnitude and undesirability of what he calls, “massive Federal subsidies to agriculture.” He argues that it is a waste of taxpayer money to continue to subsidize state and federal agencies such as the extension service that provide free advice and technological information to failing small farm businesses. Sue Ellen Aldredge is a local environmental activist who teaches science at the local high school. She thinks small farmers, rural communities, and the important human and environmental values they embody are being destroyed by rampant development and greed. She tried to dissuade the Schmidts from leaving farming. She has kept up with the arguments about BST to increase milk production and is adamantly opposed to the use of such milk in her home. Her science education has made her aware of science’s technological failures, and she is wary of what she perceives to be an unnatural additive because she is quite sure it will harm the cows and wonders about possible effects on her family. Philip Galt, a retired ConAgra executive, lives in a large, expensive house on the ninth fairway of a golf course that was developed on a former family farm adjacent to the land the Schmidts used to farm. He sits on some major corporate boards, including ConAgra’s board. He is angry with the Federal government for not

5  Who’s Involved in Agriculture

137

preventing more foreign agricultural imports and thereby allowing the once mighty US agricultural industry to atrophy because of cheap labor, subsidized foreign production, and, what he regards as, unfair competition. He is adamantly opposed to continuation of subsidies from the US treasury to what he regards as inefficient, small farms. Todd Tillard is a single parent employed as a nurse in the local hospital. His daughter has been diagnosed with leukemia, and some local physicians blame her disease on possible contamination of drinking water by runoff of pesticides and fertilizers from agricultural land. The claim cannot be proved. His daughter received a bone marrow transplant after stressful chemotherapy and appears to be cured. Todd is disturbed by what he regards as the over chemicalized agriculture of his area. Susan Rasmussen, Professor of agricultural economics at the State Land Grant University, is aware of the loss of local agricultural land to shopping malls and housing. She is certain it is not going to stop because of Colorado’s continued population growth and higher incomes. People don’t want to become farmers, but they do demand high-quality food. Professor Rasmussen is a strong advocate of the intelligent use of all modern agricultural technology to produce food. Without modern technology (genetic engineering, pesticides, and precision farming with new machines, global positioning systems (GPS), and global information systems (GIS) and with fewer productive acres because of development near urban areas, she thinks people will go hungry because the world will not be able to produce enough food. 1.3.2  Reasonable Ethical Arguments Below is a brief outline of the reasons that might be offered for and against action in this case by one who favors and one who does not favor the utilitarian position and by one who favors and one who does not favor an alternative moral argument. A Utilitarian Argument in Favor of Family Farms Utilitarian theory states that when one is confronted with a choice of action, one ought to act in such a way that promotes the greatest amount of happiness for all those affected. Overall happiness can be calculated by measuring the amount of pleasure and pain that an action produces. In examining George Schmidt’s case, we encounter just one of many examples of small, private farmers losing their farms to increased urbanization and, most importantly, the big money of corporate farming. In this particular case study, George Schmidt and family could not afford to continue farming and thus had to sell their family farm. The utilitarian would argue that the greatest amount of overall happiness would be achieved if American society supported and promoted the continuance of small, privately run farms. Several reasons justify the claim that preserving the family farm will produce the greatest overall happiness. By losing the family farm, we lose our

138

8  Ethical Puzzles

individual ownership and connection with agricultural land and the rural values that exist. Although such a scene is becoming more and more a scene of the past, most Americans still seem to value the rural scene of privately owned farmland. We think fondly of rolling crop land that is interspersed with old farmhouses, big red barns, silos, and the farmer on a big red or green tractor out working the fields. We think of our food being raised with the care and respect of hard-working, land-owning farmers, and value the fact that many American families are working to provide our country with good, healthy food. We like to think of the concerned farmer—carefully walking rows of crops while stopping every now and then to bend down and check the quality of the soil—as having some type of respectful connection to the land and our food. We feel that our food will be healthier if raised with the respect and concern of the family farmer. Conversely, such concern and connection to the land and crops is arguably not possible on the corporate farm. Concerned only with profit, the corporate farm is devoid of or minimizes the values we cherish in the small family farm. Such intimate care, and connection, with the land and crops seems much less possible from a time-clock-punching employee of a mega-farming corporation. Moreover, we understand that there is another great value to having our food come from a large number of individual farmers instead of from a few farming corporations. If our food is produced by a large number of individual farmers, there is a small likelihood that these growers will unfairly manipulate the public. Conversely, if the majority of our food is owned by only a handful of mega-farming corporations, concern for monopolies controlling what happens with the production, distribution, and price of our food is warranted. By losing the family farm, we lose our rural communities and the values that exist therein. We equate rural country living with honest living and value the rural lifestyle for its contrast to the hustle and bustle of contemporary urban life. Many Americans take tremendous pride in our small rural towns and the unique way of life that only exists in the rural community. By losing the family farm, we not only lose our individual farmers, but we lose a key link that maintains the integrity of small communities that depend on the farming enterprise for their existence. When the small farmer goes, the local feed store, hardware store, farm machinery business, and all the other small businesses that make a viable community also go. By losing the family farm, we not only lose those rural values that come with living on and working with privately owned land, but we lose the values that exist within communities whose members live closely connected lives that are dependent on each other and focused on the good of the entire community. If we lose family farms, we let big business be responsible for our health and for the land. We are concerned with soil erosion and sediment runoff. We are concerned with groundwater contamination from pesticide use, and we are concerned with the genetic modification of our food. We are concerned with the health of the land, the health of ecosystems, and our health. It seems much more prudent to have such responsibility rest in the hands of many farmers who have to live and raise their families on the land, versus in the hands of corporations whose major concern is profit. By losing the family farm, we lose the people who, one would think, ought to care for the land

6  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

139

more than anyone else—because they own it, live on it, and raise their families on it. They have stake in the land that no corporation bent solely on profit can have. In the long run, the family farmer may be the one who cares for community and environmental health much more than the corporation. Such a value is extremely important in the lives of us all who care about our, and the environment’s, health and well-being. Overall, the greatest amount of happiness will be produced if we Americans protect and uphold the family farm and the values it maintains. The values that exist in communities in which individuals own and care for the farmland and crops grown are far more important than the values the corporation offers. Our health and the health of the environment—health being one of our deepest held values—are better served by preserving the family farm. Through protecting the family farm, we are happier overall—we are healthier, the environment is healthier, and our rural communities and the rural way of life are preserved. By preserving the family farm, we protect, preserve, and continue to enjoy those many important values that stem from the lifestyle of family farming. By preserving the family farm—rather than letting corporations overrun our deeply held values—we are happier overall. A Utilitarian Argument Against Family Farms Utilitarian theory states that when one is confronted with a choice of action, one ought to act in such a way that promotes the greatest amount of happiness for all those affected. Overall happiness can be calculated by measuring the amount of pleasure and pain that an action produces. In examining George Schmidt’s case, we encounter just one of many examples of small, private farmers losing their farms to increased urbanization and the economic pressures of corporate farming. In this case, George Schmidt and family could not afford to continue farming and had to sell their farm. The utilitarian would argue that the greatest amount of overall happiness is achieved when our crops are produced by corporate agriculture not by the small, family farmer. Several reasons justify the claim that promoting corporate agriculture will produce the greatest overall happiness. With corporate agriculture, land is freed to use in other ways. For example, land can be developed for housing, natural areas can be created, and suburban communities can grow and expand. Corporate agriculture enables the land to be farmed more efficiently. Modern technology (genetic engineering, pesticides, precision farming, global positioning systems (GPS), global information systems (GIS), etc.) enable more efficient production and higher yields. With greater efficiency, extra land becomes available to suit the needs of growing suburban communities. Some farmland can be converted back to natural habitat, while other land can be developed for new housing, shopping malls, businesses, etc. With corporate agriculture, more of the world’s hungry can be fed. Modern technology allows the farmer to obtain higher yields. By capitalizing on the production capability of modern agriculture, more food can be grown to feed the world’s

140

8  Ethical Puzzles

hungry. With growing American and world populations, modern technology is needed to feed all. Corporate agriculture, which is more efficient than family farming, best produces food for the world’s hungry. With corporate agriculture, the citizen saves money. Corporate farmers are able to produce food more cheaply than family farmers, and the savings are passed on to consumers. Moreover, through corporate agriculture, food can be more easily distributed to locations far from production. Consumers are brought a better variety of food choices along with cheaper prices. Furthermore, the American taxpayer saves money when federal farm subsidies for the family farmer are no longer needed. Agencies such as the Cooperative Extension Service that provide advice and technological information to failing small farm businesses will be no longer be needed or will have a reduced role. Overall, the peoples’ needs are better served by corporate agriculture than by small family farms. Corporate agriculture serves the needs of the majority and brings about the greatest benefit to the community by providing opportunities to develop land that will better serve the majority’s needs. With rising populations, corporate agriculture is not only better than family farming at feeding the growing number of people, but is the only way to combat the world’s hunger problem efficiently. Finally, the citizenry will be better served by corporate agriculture, because it saves the consumer and taxpayer money. Such benefits provide a greater amount of happiness for the entire population than family farming can provide. By promoting corporate agriculture—rather than letting our romantic sentiments of preserving the family farm influence our decisions—we are happier overall. A Deontological Argument in Favor of Family Farms One can determine if the disappearance of the family farm is a good or bad thing, by examining the moral implications of family farming in comparison to corporate farming practices. Maxims based on such practices would be examined and universalized to test the morality of each. Such an endeavor would be difficult because usually one evaluates individual acts, whereas the disappearance of the family farm due to corporate agriculture is not an individual act that can easily be evaluated. One must consider the problem by examining individual aspects of both practices. Logically one should support family farming because the maxims based on family farming practices satisfy tests of universalization much better than maxims based on corporate farming practices. Remember, a maxim has to be tested by the categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Before looking at a few individual actions of corporate agriculture, let us first examine the universal applicability of corporate monopolies, especially in regard to food production. This issue and two others to be discussed all fall under the broad maxim, “I ought to have my food grown by corporate agriculture.”

6  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

141

Food Ought to Be Produced by Corporate Monopolies and Not by a Conglomeration of Small Family Farmers Although a difficult stretch, it can be argued that in a capitalistic world in which food is produced by corporations, there will eventually be a situation in which only a few major corporate monopolies will have control of growing, distribution, and selling our food. Such a monopolistic system, run solely by a few profit-driven corporations, is likely to favor the interests of a corporate minority and work against the best interests of the majority of citizens. Unless restricted by government, corporate agriculture is very likely to become monopolistic. Issues of accessibility, genetic diversity, and ways of distribution will be left in the hands of a ruling minority. Such power in the hands of a few corporations over one of our most precious and absolutely necessary resources—food— will likely cause tremendous hardship for humans; such a system—as wisdom dictates—is likely to fail. Wisdom tells us that a management and control of a necessary resources—the land and food—that is made up of diverse ideas and practices is better than management by monolithic, profit-driven corporations. Should tragedy strike, a system based on diversity is much more likely to withstand and survive hardship than a system that is monolithic. Corporate monopolies, although incredibly powerful, are likely to fail to satisfy the needs of many (e.g., the poor) when tragedy strikes. Let us now examine a specific farming practice of corporate agriculture that deals with this issue: Monoculture  We are still in the process of learning this “monolithic lesson” in regard to monoculture. Should disease or pesticide-resistant insects infest a monocultural agricultural area, the entire crop is likely to be lost. It is better to diversify types of crops (as the family farmer is much more likely to do), so that all will not be lost in case of tragedy. We learn this lesson from observing nature. Through the process of evolution, species with greater genetic diversity are more able to withstand tragedy and thus continue to exist and evolve. Species that do not have the ability to withstand tragic changes in their environment perish. Likewise, farms that grow a diversity of crops are more likely to withstand tragedy. Likewise, agriculture that is owned by many small farmers is more likely to withstand tragedy than agriculture owned by only a few powerful executives. Heavy Use of Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides, and Fungicides  Corporate agriculture that is focused solely on profit (often only short term profit) is more likely to use environmentally degrading chemicals than family farms. Such a practice would be considered irrational and thus immoral. If corporate farming practices continue to include intensive chemical use and if all farming throughout the world uses synthetic chemicals in ways that corporate agriculture does, it can be argued that the earth cannot, and will not, withstand intense chemical contamination. Ecosystems will be polluted beyond short-term recovery, and aquifers will be polluted to levels that are unsafe for human and animal consumption. Such intensive

142

8  Ethical Puzzles

chemical practices cannot be universalized because of the possibility of harm to human and environmental health. Thus, several aspects of corporate agriculture do not pass the test of universalization, and it is thus irrational and immoral. If full control of the growing, distribution, and selling of our food is given to a powerful few—like most monolithic structures—corporate agriculture will fail, most likely with terrible cost to people. Corporate agriculture’s use of monoculture and intensive chemical use are also not universally applicable farming practices. Long-term care for the land and environmental health are essential for sustainable agriculture. Family farming, which is much more likely to have such values, passes a universal value test much better than corporate agriculture—and is thus a more moral way of practicing agriculture. A Deontological Argument Against Family Farms One should judge if the disappearance of the family farm is a good or bad thing, by examining the moral implications of family farming practices in comparison to corporate farming practices. Maxims based on such practices would be examined and universalized to test the morality of each. Once again the test is difficult because the disappearance of the family farm due to corporate agriculture is not an individual act that can easily be evaluated. The problem must be approached by examining individual aspects of both practices. One could support corporate agriculture because the maxim upon which corporate agricultural practice rests survives tests of universalization much better than the overarching maxim upon which factory farming is grounded. One must examine the overarching maxim of the family farm supporter: that we ought to have our food produced by the family farm versus by corporate agriculture. Food ought to be produced by a conglomeration of small family farmers, and not by large corporations. Such a claim, if applied universally, would fail and thus should be regarded as irrational. With more 7.4 billion people on earth, the demand for food cannot be met by small, individual farmers who are much less efficient than large, farming corporations. If we rely upon family farms to provide the world with food, the amount of food produced, unfortunately, could not meet the demand. Consequently, there would not be enough food to feed all of the people of the world. However, let us assume for a moment that family farming can currently produce enough food to feed the world. Even if it can be argued that current food demand can be met by family farming, it is crucial to note that family farming will not be able to continue to meet this demand in the future. Human population will grow in the coming years. In order to continue to feed the growing number of people, the more efficient means of production practiced by corporate agriculture will be necessary. Family farming simply cannot produce enough food to supply the predicted population. If our goal is to feed all the people of the world, and if family farming cannot succeed in such a goal, then one can only conclude that obligations to family farms over corporate agriculture are irrational. Another important issue in the debate

6  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

143

over our obligations to the family farm is the cost of food. Due to more efficient farming practices, on average, the corporate farm is able to produce food for less than the family farm. This is extremely important if the goal is to make sure that the world’s population is fed. If some persons are excluded from obtaining ample groceries because they cannot afford the higher cost of family farmed food, then supporting the family farm, again, is irrational. It is much more rational to support corporate farming practices that produce cheaper food for consumers and thus better enable everyone to be fed. The inability to produce enough food to feed the current and growing human population and the inability to provide cheaper food for consumers cannot accomplish the goal of feeding the world. Thus, supporting the family farm over large farming corporations is irrational. Failing the tests of universalization, the family farm is an irrational practice that must be discarded if the world’s people are going to be adequately fed—both now and in the future.

1.4  Case Study 4: Food Aid The 2018 World Inequality Report showed that in 2016 the top 10% of US earners accounted for 47% of total national income. The top 1% of individuals in the world captured 20% of the world’s income whereas the bottom 50% had 9%. In the United States the top 1% held 39% of all income in 2014 The food generosity of industrial countries, whether in their own self-interest (disposing of food surpluses) or under the mantle of alleged distributive justice, has probably done more to sap the vitality of agricultural development in the developing world than any other single factor. Hopper, David W. 1976. The development of agriculture in developing countries. Sci. American, Sept.

The Baltazar family had farmed in Laguna province on the main island of Luzon in the Republic of the Philippines for many generations. The family had an average income for their village. José and his wife, Restituta, both worked on the farm and participated in community life. Both were faithful members of their village’s Catholic church. They were good farmers and had been among the first to adopt most of the green revolution technology when it became available in the 1980s. The green revolution technological package introduced them to the benefits of water control and scheduled irrigation of usually two and, in a good water year, three annual rice crops. Those who promoted the technology also introduced regular use of insecticides and herbicides to control insects and weeds and reduce hand weeding, which was becoming more costly as the children grew and left the farm and as hired labor became more expensive. Before the green revolution, they had not used purchased fertilizer and saved seed from each harvest to plant the next crop. Afterward, the new, higher yielding, green revolution varieties had to be purchased from the local seed dealer for each planting. Bank loans were then needed to purchase the new, required inputs of pesticides, fertilizer, and seed. Increased rice

144

8  Ethical Puzzles

yields covered these additional costs and enabled them, with pride, to pay the bank loan each year. The Baltazars regularly produced enough rice to feed their family and had a surplus to sell in the local market. The Baltazar’s farm (3 hectares, about 7.5 acres) was small by US standards, but it had produced enough to keep the family healthy and moderately prosperous. The farm had produced enough income to enable each of the five children to obtain a university degree. Some had earned more than one. As each child graduated from the university, the number of prideful pictures displayed in the home grew. However, the farm labor supply diminished. The Baltazars, similar to most successful farmers, had a television, a VCR, a refrigerator, a stereo system, and adequate furniture; but they did not own a car. José had purchased a small motorbike that was adequate to carry him, his wife, and one or two small children. In recent years, more and more farmers failed to raise enough rice to pay the bank loans and were forced to sell their land and move to the city. The land remained agricultural because it was purchased by a neighbor whose farm got larger. The larger farms always seemed to do better. José worried more each year that they too might have to sell the farm and move to the city and find some other kinds of employment. He and Restituta had farming skills. They knew how to farm, but he was not sure either could find a city job. Each year the yield loss from the Brown plant leafhopper and from the annual grass weeds jungle rice and barnyardgrass seemed to become greater, and his rice yields went down. It was apparent to José and his neighbors that the green revolution technology, based on large inputs of fertilizer and pesticides, was no longer working as well as it had, and rice yields were declining as his expenses for the technology increased. Regrettably, they knew that the expense of the technology was forcing them to consider selling the farm. They did not want to sell and leave, as other farmers had. In the local shops where he met other farmers and read the Manila newspaper, he learned that the same thing was happening all over Luzon. The disappointment among the farmers was supported by the news. If the pest problems could not be solved and if yields did not increase next year, the residents of Luzon and perhaps of all of the Philippines could face a severe rice shortage, which would clearly affect the well-being of many people. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, then the President of the Philippines (who had a master’s degree in economics), accepted the advice of her Minister of Agriculture that the time had come for the Philippine government to seek large shipments of rice from international donors to avoid hunger and, perhaps, massive starvation in the country. President Arroyo decided to appeal to the international donor community for help. José read this in the newspaper and discussed it in the local shops where he met his fellow farmers. He was pleased and confused. He was pleased that the President, whom he had voted for and trusted, was going to seek international food aid. He knew that if some help didn’t arrive soon, he would be forced to sell his farm to one of the large, expanding farms in the area. He would lose his livelihood and his home. He knew that the green revolution technology that had served him and his neighbors so well for several years was failing, and no new technology was readily available to increase yield again. He could not have articulated the reasons the technology

6  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

145

failed (insect and weed resistance to pesticides, new insects and new weeds that could not be controlled by the available technology, reduced supply of irrigation water, lower response to fertilizer), but he knew things were not working well. Technology suppliers and advisors from the university told him that things would get better, but he was suspicious. It was the technology they had recommended and convinced him to use that had failed, and he was not sure that more of the same was going to solve the problem the technology had created. José hoped the foreign food aid would allow him to keep his farm because he could eat the free food. He thought if he returned to the old ways of farming, he could improve his yield and thereby provide food for him and his wife and have a little to sell. His situation was desperate but not yet hopeless. He needed to eat and he and his neighbors could not produce enough as they had in the past. President Arroyo knew that if she could not get foreign food aid for her country, there would be hunger and, in the worst case, starvation. Her political situation was tenuous at best, and if she did not gain some help, she would surely lose the next election. The political opposition was regularly noting the failure of her agricultural policies that had led to reduced production and not enough rice to feed the people. Without food aid, the price of rice would surely rise as production decreased and that could cause severe problems in the cities where most people lived. 1.4.1  Background Information Many wring their hands over the hunger of people in the troubled, unstable regions of the developing world. Yet, there is little consensus on what the American response or the American role should be. Liberals blame the West (the United States) and racism for the third world’s plight and believe that democracy and foreign aid will overcome historical, cultural, and environmental forces. They argue that while development assistance rarely makes dramatic changes in the tide of history, it can do significant good in many places. Conservatives think the free market is the answer, and some believe that even a display of interest in countries in Africa or Asia with hunger problems indicates naive do-goodism. They argue that while there are a few examples of human societies that have escaped the limitations of their time, history, and environment, these have been exceptions, not the rule. Americans have perceptions of the world that govern how they think and decide what they ought to do. There are at least four perceptions that affect our views and actions. The four perceptions and consequences are as follows: Abundance  Americans think there is an abundance of resources. Consequently, we tend to blame anyone’s lack of progress on individual or corporate lack of initiative. Individualism and Democracy  Americans pride themselves on being individuals not subject to the will of central authority; we are suspicious of central government.

146

8  Ethical Puzzles

Consequently, we tend to dismiss the notion that in the world’s poor, needy countries, a strong central government might be the only way to initiate change. Revolution and Social Change  Many Americans believe that the American revolution was a good one. It built a new society, our society, in a new environment, rather than attempting to build a new society on the ruins of an old one. Consequently, we tend to believe that revolution and radicalism are synonyms and bad and should therefore be discouraged. Economic Liberalism and Attitudes Toward Poverty  Many Americans are economic liberals (we believe in the free market). We think too much government intervention in the market is bad. We resist strong management by central government. Consequently, we tend to feel that any government has, as one if its first responsibilities, the duty to protect and further the interests of its citizens. Just as parents are expected to provide for their own children before they consider the interests of strangers, a government must first look after the interests of its own citizens. 1.4.2  Food Aid Food aid is a primary form of development assistance. It is important to understand the primary reasons for giving food aid and possible consequences of aid for the recipient country. Reasons for Giving  Food aid is likely to have smaller repercussions on balance of payments than cash aid and is more politically appealing than cash. It is unlikely that most donor nations will give large amounts of cash without assurance of what will be purchased and from whom it will be purchased. It is worthy of note that the United States, one of the world’s wealthiest nations with the world’s strongest economy, gives significantly less foreign development aid (aid to help people directly as opposed to military aid or other technical assistance) as a proportion of its gross national product, than most other developed nations. Food aid may expand markets for the giving country. The real cost of food aid may be low, because food from donor countries is often produced in excess. Furthermore, storage costs must be paid, if food is kept. Donors may be genuinely concerned with the plight of the poor for political or humanitarian reasons. Possible Consequences for Receiving Countries  If food aid is not totally additive to other aids which would have been given in the absence of food aid, it can depress prices and drive local farmers out of business and into unemployment. Therefore, providing aid is acceptable (no pork to a Muslim country); it is best if it has no or only slight unplanned disincentives for agricultural development. Food aid could be provided as food for work or food for school, but depressing local agricultural production is an undesirable outcome for the recipient country.

8  Food Aid

147

If food aid does not replace commercial food imports that would have to be made to avoid famine or hunger, it may not be of much help to the receiving country. In the best case, food aid releases resources that would have been used to buy food. Therefore, while food aid may be designed to reduce donor country food surpluses, it will be most beneficial if it also reduces recipient country foreign exchange losses for food purchases. It may lower food prices that will benefit indigenous industry, the military, the dominant political party, and consumers. But lowering food prices usually hurts farmers. Food aid can be a subsidy to democratic practice under conditions of scarcity. It is hard for any country to husband resources for future economic investment when people are hungry or when vocal groups are pressing for current consumption. However food aid is not always beneficial to recipients. It can have negative effects because food prices have opposite effects on consumers and producers. Food exports benefit donor producers by boosting prices, but they may also increase corruption in recipient nations when food goes astray or is misused. Donor nation consumers pay more in taxes and directly for food, but food donations may depress prices for recipient country farm producers. Farmers in receiving countries may produce less, have reduced purchasing power, and migrate to cities if they lose their farm. Overall agricultural production may decrease unless food aid is totally additive to domestic production. Food aid can and often does reinforce cheap food policies through price ceilings for food, forced sales to government agencies at low prices, export restrictions on domestic production, new taxes on farmers, and distorted exchange rates that tax agricultural exports and subsidize imports. 1.4.3  Reasonable Ethical Arguments Below is a brief outline of the reasons that might be offered for and against action in this case by one who favors the utilitarian position and by one who favors an alternative argument. A Utilitarian Argument in Favor of Food Aid At first glance it would seem that a utilitarian analysis of the situation would recommend that food aid be given to the Philippines, helping Jose’s family as well as thousands of others. In the beginning, the green revolution technology that made Jose’s farm so successful provided small farmers with a great amount of pleasure. Their lives were easier, they were able to afford to buy luxury items and send their children to the university. Unfortunately the pleasure afforded by the technology was brief, and in the long term it appears that the small farmers will suffer once again. How does the utilitarian calculus play out for the future? If food aid is given to the Philippines and they continue to use practices that only help in the short term, but fail to provide a sustainable source of food for the long term, endangering the

148

8  Ethical Puzzles

food supply again and again, then the net amount of suffering in the future might increase. If food aid is not given, then the current farmers, such as Jose and his wife, might suffer, but then farming practices and food supply might once again stabilize for the future. The quote from Hopper at the beginning of this case claims that the food generosity of industrial countries, whether in their own self-interest (disposing of food surpluses) or under the mantle of alleged distributive justice, has probably done more to sap the vitality of agricultural development in the developing world than any other single factor. It can be argued that by not giving aid, the Philippine small farmers will suffer for a brief time, but in the long run will find methods that are sustainable for their livelihood and the land. Though this solution might be the best for the long term, it seems like an unfortunate decision to make, especially because the countries that provided the green revolution technology may not be able to help the developing nation when the technology fails. This is a complicated issue with many economic and political dimensions. Utilitarians would argue that the solution that will benefit the largest number of people is the right one, even if some innocent people such as Jose and Restituta suffer. A Deontological Argument Against Food Aid An alternative argument yields different results. Human life is valued highly. If a wealthy person sees someone in need of money, it would be easy to ignore the person who needs his help, but the wealthy are obligated to reflect on their duty. By using the categorical imperative, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” The wealthy person realizes that if she/he were poor and in need of help, she/he would like someone to help. The case study says, “Jose hoped the foreign food aid would allow him to keep his farm because he could eat the free food.” Jose is not, as most people do not, think of the long-term consequences of food aid. The immediate concern of feeding himself and his family is paramount. It is clear that Jose wants help through this difficult time. If a wealthy country knows people are in need of food and has surplus food to give, it would be immoral not to help. If the wealthy, developed nations were to fall on hard times and their people were starving, they would most likely welcome help until they could once again grow enough food to feed their own people. Even if food aid is given in the short term, it does not necessarily mean that the Philippine farmers and government won’t strive for sustainable practices in the future.

1.5  Case Study 5: The Land Ralph Lawrence was, in his view, a good farmer. He had lived on his farm all of his life (80+ years) and had imposed his ideas and wishes on it. He understood what the land is, and, in his view, he was in harmony with it. He knew he was dependent on his land. In spite of the general downturn in the US economy, his farm continued to

9  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

149

prosper, and he made a profit each year. Ralph grew soybeans and corn on more than 1200 acres of rich Illinois farmland. He had enlarged the farm from the 275 acres his father farmed by buying the land that his neighbors could no longer farm profitably. All of his land is in the Mississippi river drainage. Ralph considers himself to be a good steward of the land. In his view his stewardship includes perseverance with good farming techniques, devotion to his land and to profitable farming, and the skill he brings to growing crops—to farming. He believes it is part of his moral obligation to care for the land, so it will continue to produce and provide a living for his children and grandchildren. He shares Wendell Berry’s views on caring for the land:3 1 . Land that is used will be ruined unless it is properly cared for. 2. Land cannot be properly cared for by people who do not know it intimately. 3. People cannot be adequately motivated to care for land by incentives that are merely economic. 4. People are motivated to care for land to the extent that their interest is direct, dependable, and permanent. 5. Motivation to care for the land increases if one expects to live on it as long as one lives. 6. Motivation to care will increase if the land is to be passed to children and grandchildren who will farm the land. A major reason for Ralph’s farming success is that he knows how to optimize yield of corn and soybeans and maximize his profit. Two keys to his success are the use of nitrogen fertilizer and herbicides. He uses the recommended dose of proper herbicides and applies nitrogen fertilizer in accordance with soil test recommendations obtained from his county agricultural agent and the University of Illinois. He normally applies about 200 pounds of nitrogen to each acre of corn. Ralph assumed management of the farm when his father died in 1970. He immediately began more intensive nitrogen fertilization on corn and saw corn yield and profit increase. University scientists and others from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have identified Ralph, his neighbors, and many other farmers as the cause of the Gulf of Mexico’s 8776 square mile (larger New Jersey) hypoxic area (less than 2 ppm dissolved oxygen) “dead zone” where the Mississippi river enters the Gulf. In 2017 the Gulf’s dead zone was the largest, but the 63,000 square miles of the hypoxic zone in the Arabian sea is the world’s largest. The number of hypoxic zones grew by a third from 1995 to 2007, and they are expected to double every 10 years. University scientists have discovered that Ralph and his neighbors could reduce nitrogen application by up to one-half without sacrificing yield. The average amount applied to corn by US growers is about 140 lbs./acre. To gain maximum benefit, more careful spring application in the corn row and attention to soil test results are

3  Berry, W. 1992. Conservation and Local Economy. Pages 3–18 in Sex, Economy, Freedom and Community. New York, NY. Pantheon Books. 176 pp.

150

8  Ethical Puzzles

required. Ralph is reluctant to try the new way but has agreed to use it on a small portion of his corn acreage. He is not convinced it will make a difference but is willing to give it a try only because he thinks it may save him money in fertilizer cost. Many scientists believe nitrogen fertilizer use should be reduced because it is the cause of the hypoxic zones. They have harmed those whose income depends on harvesting shrimp and fish in the Gulf of Mexico. The fish supply has decreased significantly, and many fishermen have been forced into bankruptcy. It is also a major, human-caused ecological change. Ralph, in response to critics of his farming (fertility) practices, says something like the following. Ralph claims that he farms in the best way he knows how, and his methods are successful. His land is now in better shape than when his father farmed it, and he makes more money than his father did. He is sure he will be able to pass on a productive farm to his son. This is America! We are a nation of independent people, and each strives to better his lot in life. Ralph knows he is a successful farmer and use modern agricultural technology to its best advantage. He is sure he did not cause any dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and no bunch of pointy-headed university scientists has the right to tell him how to farm his land. His neighbors who farm as he does, know that those university guys are overpaid and under-worked. They are just nosing around and causing trouble. If this monitoring is permitted, pretty soon they will be checking on everything. It is none of the government’s business. For all anyone knows that so-called dead zone may have been there a long time. It is not his fault, and he will not change the way he farms. In this country everyone has the right to do what is best for them and their family. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has funded a large group of university scientists in several disciplines (soils, crop production, water resources, civil engineering, public health, fisheries, etc.) to study the Gulf dead zone and its causes and possible solutions. As part of the massive multistate study, monitoring instruments will be placed to measure the nitrogen content of water runoff from agricultural fields. This is being done because the Mississippi-Atchafalaya river basin drains about 41% of the coterminous United States, and the majority of all fertilizers and pesticides used in the United States are used within the basin. The two rivers account for 90% of total nitrogen flux discharged annually to the Gulf. The hypothesis is that agricultural fertilizer runoff is the major source of nitrate flux to the Gulf. Ralph is tormented by at least four options for the future: 1 . He can continue to farm and fertilize as he has in the past. 2. He could accept the recommendations of the Illinois Cooperative Extension service and the University of Illinois research scientists and can reduce use of nitrogen fertilizer without sacrificing crop yield. Doing so will require buying new planting equipment. 3. Finally he can cooperate with a research team from the University and the EPA that wants to place monitoring instruments on his farm. He is reluctant because of the fear that the data generated will, in some way, be used to require him to reduce fertilizer use and thereby yield and profit. The experimental instruments

10  Background Information

151

are automatic, and the readings will be sent electronically to a central processing facility. His neighbors encourage him to participate in the study although they are reluctant to participate. 4. He could agree to reduce his fertilizer use but actually not change. That is he could decide, in the crudest sense, to lie. 1.5.1  Background Information Dirt is the term we humans use to describe things that are common, filthy, or contemptible. We also call things we regard as unclean or capable of soiling as dirt, things such as mud, dust, dung, or trash. Unfortunately we also apply the term to the surface of the earth—the soil. The soil is what supports plant life and thus supports all life for all of our food comes from plants. The soil is the land, and it is a place for growth and development of all life. The soil is a thin layer of the earth’s surface, that is fragile, easily destroyed, and intensely biologically active. It is the region of the earth’s surface through which all of the elements necessary for our humanity’s past, present, and future must cycle. The earth’s diameter is about 8000 miles, and the surface layer is roughly 5–19 miles thick, but the soil layer at the surface is only an average of 3–4 feet thick. The survival of terrestrial species is dependent on that thin mantle of soil. All soils (there are many different soils) are complex, colored, living systems, with complex crystalline structure. Good agricultural soils have very large surface areas (1 gram = 1/454 of a pound may have a surface area of 700–900 square yards). That same gram of soil may also contain 100 million living organisms that live in what is literally a chemical soup of organic and inorganic raw material. Soil is the place where we humans put things to modify soil performance (fertilizer, pesticides, water) and other things (waste) in hopes they will disappear. Soil is formed and can be destroyed, and as we have learned, we have come from the dust (the soil) of the earth, and we will return to it. Without soil we would not be here. However, 90% of US crop land is losing soil. The United States loses 2 billion tons of topsoil a year to wind (wind erosion is as high as 25 tons/ha/year in some western states) and water erosion. The cost in lowered productivity, pollution of waterways, and silting of reservoirs is, according to the US Department of Agriculture, $40 billion per year. If soil erosion continues at its present pace over the next 20 years, the Land Institute in Salina, KS, estimates that the potential yield of good land without the technological solution of added fertilizer and irrigation will drop up to 20%. The estimated $40 billion lost in the United States is 10% of the estimated $400 billion lost worldwide. Almost half of US crop land is losing more of its soil than is being naturally replenished.4

4  Worster, D. 1985. A sense of soil: Agricultural conservation and American culture. J. Agric. and Human Values. Fall:28–35.

152

8  Ethical Puzzles

Soil erosion is not a new phenomenon.5 Greece has lost soil to erosion for 8000  years. The central Mexican highlands had significant soil erosion for 3500 years before Cortez conquered Mexico and erosion is still a major problem. Agriculture is responsible for about 70% of river contamination due to soil from fields that carries fertilizer nutrients and pesticides into rivers.6 A major concern is the huge and growing “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. Nitrogen enrichment from agricultural land drained by the Mississippi river has created an area unable to support most marine life. Every US state is losing some of its best farmland, primarily to development.7 Agricultural scientists and farmers know a great deal about soil erosion. Its causes and cures are known, but it continues and even increases in many places. Jackson8 claims that “agriculture has been given every chance to prove itself as a viable experiment for continuously sustaining a large standing crop of humans.” It has failed to do so. “Not one significant breakthrough has been advanced for a truly sustainable agriculture that is at once healthful and sufficiently compelling to be employed by a stable population, let alone an exploding one.” Almost half of US crop land is losing more of its soil than is being replenished each year. White9 suggests this will continue until “we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man.” With this attitude we are allowed to continue to treat the earth as just dirt and its non-human residents as mobile protein or as sources of entertainment, food, or danger. In this view we treat the earth and its soil as a machine. Machines must preform but do not have rights. We have no moral obligation to machines. We do not conceive of the earth as an organism that may have rights or as an organism that strives to maintain its balance—its stability. In general the practice of agriculture treats the earth as if there was no problem. We treat the earth as technological optimists. There is no need to implement costly or difficult soil protecting strategies, no need to take erosion-­prone land out of production, no need to maintain shelterbelts or cover vegetation, no need to plant less profitable but safer (for soil and other species) crops, and no need to rethink our constant devotion to profit maximization (Worster 1985). Agriculture’s practitioners assume agriculture is sustainable, and its only problem is low profit. Continued technological improvements will enable continued increases in productivity even as land quality deteriorates. Soil is not and never will be a scare resource. 5  Anonymous. 2002. Natural systems agriculture at the Land Institute. The Land Institute. August. 4 pp. 6  Glover, J. 2002. Soils are our future: Taking another approach using nature as a guide. Leopold Letter 14(2):6–7. 7   American Farmland Trust. 2003. http://www.farmland.org/farmingontheedge/major_findings. htm. Accessed Feb. 17. 8  Jackson, W. 1980. New Roots for Agriculture. Friends of the Earth. San Francisco, CA. 155 pp, and Jackson, W., W.  Berry, and B.  Colman (ed.). 1984. Meeting the Expectations of the Land: Essays in sustainable agriculture and stewardship. North Point Press, San Francisco, CA. 250 pp. 9  White, L. 1967. The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science 155:1203–1207.

10  Background Information

153

Others10 point out that in the 10,000 years of human history, expansion of cultivated land (using more land) was the main tool for increasing crop production. Now there is a shrinking supply of crop land per capita, no new land to cultivate, and a slowing rate of yield increase for all major crops. The world’s farmers, indeed the world, face the largest increase in food demand in human history. In 1950 the world had about 2.5 billion people. In 2003, the population was 6.3 billion, now (2019) it is 7.4 billion, and it is projected to grow to 9+ billion by 2050. The question can be framed as a moral one: not to preserve ecosystems (of which soil is the most fundamental component) is a supreme ethical failure in terms of our debt to the world, to future generations, to the very sanctity of creation. Technological optimists disagree. Saving the ecosphere, the soil, for its own sake is insanity if we thereby sacrifice the welfare of humans who depend on agriculture’s productivity. Thus, we are compelled to ask and deal with several questions, each of which has an ethical dimension related to the soil: 1 . Should we conserve soil? 2. Should we preserve farm land? Should we pass laws to do so? 3. Should we mandate a greenbelt around cities? 4. Should we require a high farmland conversion tax to be paid by the seller? 5. Should we require greater urban density? 1.5.2  Reasonable Ethical Arguments There is little conflict between a utilitarian and alternative argument in this case. A utilitarian would say that Ralph should accept what the EPA has ordered him to do. By trying to “fool” the EPA, Ralph may be harming many more people—all the people whose lives have been affected by the Dead Zone now and in the future. As far as we can tell from the case, the only people who have the potential to be harmed by the EPA’s study are Ralph, his family, and his neighbors. It doesn’t seem that there will be much harm for Ralph if he abides by the EPA’s recommendations because they predict that his crop yield will be the same using the new method of application. His fear seems not to be about the land or his stewardship of it, but rather about the yield his farm will produce. If he can use less nitrogen and keep his soil healthy, then there is no conflict between his stewardship of the land and the EPA’s concern about reducing nitrogen in the soil. It doesn’t seem that Ralph really is abiding by Wendell Berry’s views for living on the land if his only means to maintain the health of his soil are the application of nitrogen and herbicides. Ralph seems to think that proper care of the land means increasing crop yields, while the EPA might define proper care of the land as using practices that benefit the farmer and the ecosystem.

10

 Brown, L. 1997. State of the World - 1997. W. W. Norton, Inc. New York, NY.

154

8  Ethical Puzzles

A Utilitarian Argument in Favor of the Land Clearly a utilitarian would not want Ralph to fool the EPA because only a handful of people are affected by the decision to reduce fertilizer use. A utilitarian would advise Ralph not to trick the EPA. One can argue that if the yield of Ralph’s farm and the neighboring farms is reduced, then many people will be affected by the decrease in food and increase in prices. But there is no way to determine how many people will be affected. It is also difficult to assume how many people will be affected by the dead zone in the Gulf. This is not only a problem with this case study, but a problem with utilitarianism in general. How exactly is the “utilitarian calculus” formulated? How exactly do you determine what creates the greatest amount of happiness for the most people? Utilitarianism gives us a rudimentary guess, but there is ultimately no way to predict the consequences of an action until after the event has taken place. A Deontological Argument Against the Land Others would most likely advise Ralph to abide by the EPA as well, even though at first this might not be apparent. Ralph seems clear in his opinion that, “In this country everyone has the right to do what is best for them and their family.” This is Ralph’s maxim. Ralph would be happy to accept the condition (the maxim) that everyone in every circumstance should do what is best for their family. But when Ralph makes the decision not to change in spite of the EPA, he does something that is not acceptable as a moral action. If he tries to make his decision into a categorical imperative, then he fails to justify his action. Under no circumstances is it rational. Some philosophers might allow for a modification of this rule. A categorical imperative of this nature would be, “Lying or being secretive is allowable in circumstances where it is best to do what is right for your family.” The strongest moral argument is that in this circumstance lying is wrong, even if Ralph feels it is best for his family for him to do so. We obviously have to make some compromises. No one wants to do what is not good for their family.

1.6  Case Study 6: Egg Machines A Story More than 90% of laying hens in the United States live in cages in large, intensive production facilities. This practice and improved technology have increased the average egg production per hen from 70 per year in 1933 to at least 270 today. In such facilities, birds cannot forage, flap their wings, dust bathe, establish dominance hierarchies, or even preen and clean themselves in natural ways. Culling of injured birds or those whose production has decreased is economically inef-

11  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

155

ficient. Therefore, entire populations are replaced every 12–15 months, and the old birds are sent to be killed for their meat.11 There is a possible solution. Imagine that 50 years from now you are standing in the middle of a huge, antiseptic (very clean) single-story, metal, climate-controlled warehouse. What you see before you is row after row of tan-colored objects that look a little like fuzzy footballs. A seemingly endless array of shiny, stainless-steel pipes descend from the ceiling, and each enters an orifice on the near (maybe it is the front, but one cannot be sure) end of each of the football-shaped objects. A black rubber tube is attached to the opposite end of the football. The sole building attendant explains what you are seeing. The shiny pipes bring water and feed to what he calls “the birds,” and the rubber tubes carry excrement and urine to a sewer beneath the floor. You notice how clean, a bit like an air freshener, the building smells. It is also very quiet. Every 12 h each “bird” drops a no-­ cholesterol egg onto a conveyor belt that takes it too a sorting and candling room. It is all automatic. The attendant says, with a sly wink, “Regular as clockwork.” You are staring at thousands of living egg machines, transgenic animals genetically engineered to convert feed and water into eggs with maximum economic and labor efficiency. These egg machines are vastly more efficient than any of their evolutionary ancestors—the laying hen. These, albeit science fiction objects, are biologically descended from the germplasm of many species that are unrelated in nature, including humans, turkeys, and yesterday’s chickens, so the attendant is not speaking in metaphors when he calls them “birds.” Unlike today’s poultry varieties, which are only treated as machines in vast egg factories, the brave new birds you are staring at really seem to be more machine than animal. In creating these “birds,” poultry scientists and genetic engineers have not only selected for the trait of efficient conversion of feed to eggs; they have also selected for lack of responsiveness to the environment. The result is not a bird that is dumb or stupid, but a living organism wholly lacking the ability to move or behave in dumb or stupid ways. Scientific research on these “birds” shows that the egg machines’ complete lack of externally observable behaviors is paralleled by its lack of physiological equipment necessary to support behavioral activity. The “bird’s” brain is adept at controlling the digestive system, but the areas of the brain required to receive and process sensory input and initiate muscular movement have been selected against, bred (engineered) away. The new bird has no eyes, no ears, no nose, and no nerve endings in its skin; it has no ability to perceive or respond to any external information it might receive if it had eyes, ears, and a nose. This work has not been done, but it may be a future possibility: 1. Suppose a group of poultry scientists or egg producers who see this story see possibilities in the idea. Should we find them some funds, set them up in a lab,

 Adapted from Varner, G. Animals: Beef, Milk and Eggs. Pages 275–293 in G. Comstock (ed.). 2002. Life Science Ethics. Ames lA, Iowa State Univ. Press.

11

156

8  Ethical Puzzles

and encourage them to go to work? Should a land-grant university support this work? 2. If you find this idea repulsive, why? Do aesthetic considerations have any role in moral decisions?12 1.6.1  Reasonable Ethical Arguments Below is a brief outline of the reasons that might be offered for and against action in this case by one who favors and one who does not favor the utilitarian position and by one who favors and one who does not favor an alternative position. A Utilitarian Argument in Favor of Egg Machines A utilitarian ethic is often invoked when speaking in defense of animal rights or animal welfare argument because utilitarian moral arguments are discussed in terms of pleasure or pain, which can be extended to include animals. A utilitarian bases the rightness or wrongness of the action on what will produce the maximum amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain to all affected by an act. Those who use a utilitarian justification say that using animals for food production is wrong because it causes suffering to the animal. If one can prove that an animal suffers when used for food production, and there are alternatives that do not cause the animal to suffer, then it is morally wrong to use animals for food production and morally right to use alternative methods that do not cause animals to suffer. For example, one could eat a vegetable-based diet. The utilitarian response for egg machines would claim that because the fuzzy footballs that resemble a chicken have been genetically engineered to limit or eliminate pain, using them for food is morally justified. There are several ways in which one can argue that chickens suffer in conventional egg production systems. The way they are kept in production facilities goes against a chicken’s inherent nature. Egg-­ laying chickens are kept in small wire cages. Such confined spaces make it unable for them to move around to work their muscles and joints. In normal, free range conditions, chickens are very active. It is normal behavior for chickens to scratch and peck the ground during the day when they are foraging for food. At night the chickens nest in the branches of trees or roosts in barns or sheds. They create nests and lay eggs in straw or grass bedding. All of these inherently natural behaviors are denied when they are confined to small cages in factory farms, which may cause some level of suffering analogous to not allowing humans enough room to live upright and forcing them to exist crawling on hands and knees. The chickens also

 Adapted from Comstock, G. 1997. Egg Machines. Iowa State Univ. Ag. Bioethics Forum: (2). Part 2.

12

12  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

157

do not get to incubate and hatch their own eggs which must cause some level of suffering, if not frustration, because this is the purpose for laying eggs. Confinement of chickens also causes another serious welfare issue. The small confined cages change the chicken’s behavior. It is normal to establish a “pecking order” where the dominant chickens assert their dominance by pecking other chickens into submission. When there is not enough room for the chickens to establish a pecking order, the natural instinct to peck leads to cannibalism. This has led egg producers to “de-beak,” where a chicken’s beak is sliced off with a sharp blade or burned off with heat. Even though some egg industry supporters say de-beaking is not painful, neurologists and physiologists refute this with studies that show that there is a nerve running through the chicken’s beak and slicing through the nerve must cause the chicken pain. At times egg-laying chickens live long enough for their beaks to grow back. When this happens, they are de-beaked a second time. Both scenarios of cannibalism and de-beaking must also cause the chickens to suffer. For the above reasons, people who are concerned about animal welfare argue that it is immoral for us to treat chickens in this way. In fact, if one is interested in animal welfare, it is worse to eat factory-farmed eggs than to eat the chicken itself because egg-laying hens suffer things such as de-beaking and starvation that “fryers” or chickens used for their meat do not. And egg-laying hens also live longer and so experience a greater amount of suffering over a longer amount of time. If humans must eat eggs, then they should look for ways that do not cause the animal to suffer. If “egg machines” were created, it could be argued that they would be an ethical alternative to keeping hens in factory farms. A utilitarian would argue that because of the way that the transgenic “birds” were engineered, for example, they do not have the sense faculties that contribute to suffering, such as eyes or nerve endings in the skin, and they don’t have the physiological components of animals that contribute to their discomfort in factory settings, such as joints, that become painful when not used. If something cannot feel pain and does not have consciousness, then according to utilitarianism, egg machines would be a morally justified way to obtain eggs. A Utilitarian Argument Against Egg Machines The criterion for utilitarian justification is that which produces the greatest amount of pleasure over pain or suffering. Comstock, the author of the “Egg Machines” case study (see footnote 10) criticizes the egg machine scenario because of the potential suffering of the animals when the egg machines are created. Even though the potential human benefits of the egg machines might be great, the suffering of the creatures created to produce animals that do not suffer are the cause of Comstock’s concern. He argues that the evidence about the splicing of genetic information across species has not been favorable. His concern is for those generations of animals that would be subject to the trials and errors of an imperfect science. His concern about suffering that transgenic research has thus far produced highlights the problem of justice. The concern about justice focuses on the majority that

158

8  Ethical Puzzles

is not having their pleasure maximized. In this case the individuals that are of concern are those animals that would be the result of the trial-and-error process that it takes to create the egg machines. It would be unjust to create a situation where there would be a high probability of animal suffering, even if future gains eliminated the suffering. This criticism might be overstepping the bounds of the case study, because it is a practical concern with transgenic research. The case study states that there are already egg machines and does not focus on their creation. It could be that science will one day advance to the stage where scientists know enough about mixing genomes to be able to produce transgenic egg machines in one generation without any animal suffering. Even if that were the case, one could argue that there is justification for criticizing the moral worth of egg machines because of human health concerns involved with factory farming. It could be that egg machines solve the issue of animal suffering, but they might not maximize pleasure over pain for the greatest number of people. Egg machines might not ultimately benefit people because of the health concerns involved with the mass production of food, environmental harms involved with factory farming, and the real cost of transgenic food. A genetically homogenous food supply could put the food supply at risk. The health of ecosystems and species in evolution are dependent on plants and animals that strive for more and more diversity in the genotype of a species. With industrialized agriculture, natural and artificial selection of breeding for specific traits limits an animal gene pool. Animals kept in confinement with little genetic diversity are extremely vulnerable to disease. To keep the animals well, producers must use antibiotics, which raises a human health concern due to possible development of human resistance to antibiotics (a legitimate concern). The intensive use of antibiotics in the meat, dairy, and egg industries has already been criticized for affecting human health. Egg machines could exacerbate this problem. The environmental harms of factory farming have to do with keeping a large number of animals in a confined space. Because of this, there are issues about food for the animals and waste removal. In current factory farms waste disposal is a major environmental concern. Because of the large amount of waste produced in a factory, animal factories must treat waste on site. Environmental concerns are about highly concentrated nitrogen and phosphorus that can contaminate ground and other water. Animal waste is not normally an environmental concern; in fact, animal waste is commonly an important way to fertilize soil. The problem with animal factories is the concentration of animals and their waste. Even when factories are able to treat their waste with bacterial agents, there are still conflicts with neighbors about olfactory pollution, which degrades the quality of life in communities. Egg machines are machines/creatures that produce waste, and they are grown in large industrial factories; this problem remains. The third human welfare concern with egg machines is linked with the above problems, and that is the true cost to the consumer of transgenic eggs. Real chickens require very little to produce eggs naturally. They need some space in which to move around, but not as much space as a healthy cow or hog. Chickens eat a variety of foods, often grasses, weeds, and insects, as well as any grain fed by the farmer.

12  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

159

For most of the year, laying hens produce one egg a day with little to no involvement of the farmer. In contrast to this simple and cheap way to raise chickens for eggs, egg machines are costly. The research involved with creating egg machines will be significant. There will be costs to keep egg machines producing. It is illogical to think that transgenic eggs will be cheaper to the consumer than naturally produced eggs. Unless transgenic eggs are highly subsidized by the government, the cost to the consumer will be significant. If the quest is to provide cheap protein while maintaining a high standard of animal welfare, then organic, free-range farming seems to be the best way. In terms of the well-being of the animal, we know that chickens will not suffer, if they move around in or out of doors, peck the ground, bathe in dirt, roost, and nest. Morally, that is the correct way to raise chickens. In terms of human welfare, the health, environmental, and economic concerns in the production and maintenance of factory-­farmed animals are significant. To truly create the greatest amount of pleasure for the most people, we should try and promote a simple, sustainable, economically viable solution for the future. A Deontological Argument for Egg Machines The moral criterion that should be used in support of using egg machines is rational beings should never use sentient life as a mean to an end, only as an end in itself. It is clear from the astonishing evidence concerning animal welfare in factory farms that chickens suffer greatly in cages. Chickens are conscious animals with basic interests and nervous systems. Secondly, we understand that humans are the cause of the suffering of chickens in factory settings. If humans are moral agents that are concerned about causing the suffering of other sentient life, then they should reflect on the reasons for intentionally causing suffering of other conscious life. It is often argued that humans only have a moral obligation to other rational beings. But an examination of our moral practices shows that this is not the case. People are concerned with the moral welfare of the mentally disabled, fetuses, and people in comas, none of which fulfill the criterion of rationality. Because humans are concerned with other non-rational humans, then it follows that humans do not use rationality as a sole criterion for moral worth. When arguing for the moral status of non-rational human beings, the criterion often becomes having the capacity to suffer. If humans are concerned with the capacity of non-rational humans to suffer, then they should be pressed to give reasons why non-human animals should not be included among creatures to which they have a moral obligation. Animals meet both of these criteria. They are both non-rational and have the capacity to suffer. Humans have a moral obligation to any creature that has basic interests. Basic interests are those activities that are necessary for the physical and mental survival and well-being of that creature. Those creatures who have preference-interests, who have projects, intentions, and a future, are creatures with basic interests. Humans have different basic interests than animals. Humans should not justify causing harm to other creatures that have basic interests for trivial reasons. Is egg production

160

8  Ethical Puzzles

trivial? If humans can find sufficient sources of protein in other forms at the same cost, then one could argue that eggs are not a necessary part of our diet. Even though eggs are not necessary for human survival, it is unlikely that people would easily give them up. They are an affordable source of protein and a part of many human diets. If it is true that humans have a duty to value sentient life as an end in itself, then it would follow that we should find different methods of food production. Egg machines would be a solution to this problem. Transgenically modifying an animal that would have no consciousness and no nervous system would eliminate the concern for suffering. The creature does not have the capacity to suffer and we would not be violating its basic interests to use it as a means to an end. These creatures/ machines would then have a similar moral status equivalent to plants or possibly the same moral status that we assign to some non-sentient sea animals such as sea slugs. A Deontological Argument Against Egg Machines This argument relies on a universal law or maxim to which one appeals when making a moral decision—the categorical imperative, one should act only in accordance with what one wills to be a universal law. For example if one is tempted to lie, they should consider that if everyone tempted to lie always chose to lie, it would create a unviable society. No one would trust anyone else. The appropriate maxim for the egg machines is one that supports sustainable methods of food production. The question of whether or not egg machines are moral will be answered by appealing to that which promotes sustainable food production. The trend toward industrialized agriculture has had many ramifications. Now larger tracts of land are farmed with less crop diversity. The number of family farms steadily declines. Families displaced from their land and small rural towns have dwindled or died. Soil erosion has increased. Fertilizer and pesticides have leached into streams and rivers and a dead zone, e.g., the Gulf of Mexico dead zone the size of Delaware in 2018 and New Jersey in 2017.13 But even with all the problems caused by large-scale crop farming, it is arguable that the industrialization of meat, milk, and egg production has been the greatest moral wrong. Factory farms have turned animals into machines. In the quest for efficiency of food production factory farms have confined animals to small spaces where they are unable to move around or see sunlight. Factory farms determine what to feed cattle by how quickly they gain weight, not by what is natural for the animal’s diet. Hog and chicken production fare no better. In fact they are arguably worse in terms of violating animal welfare. When people compare the methods of industrial to organic production, there are obvious differences. Industrial agriculture does not maintain a balance of resources  Roach, J. 2005. Gulf of New Mexico Dead Zone is the Size of New Jersey http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0525050525deadzone.html.

13

12  Reasonable Ethical Arguments

161

in the ecosystem. Industrial farming methods mine nutrients from the soil. Farmers use pesticides and fertilizers to keep the land productive. In industrial meat, milk, and egg production, animals would normally not survive, or become sick, but reliance on antibiotics assures that animals produce without considering their basic interests. Industrialized food production does not lead toward sustainability; it uses more resources. This is partially due to requirements to maintain animal health and partly to the desire to speed up growth, so they can be harvested quickly. Cattle gain weight when grazing on grass, but gain more rapidly when fed with corn. Corn production, in turn, requires industrialized methods to plow, seed, fertilize, and harvest fields. The reasons for supporting a universal maxim of sustainability are many. First it supports the health of the land which preserves the land for future generations as well as the health of plant and animal life. Not protecting the land for future generations can be regarded as a moral wrong. Secondly, in an industrial food system, animals are often genetically homogenous. This creates a potential for vulnerability to disease. There is less pollution in organic systems. Finally, sustainable farming preserves the land’s integrity and the integrity of animals that can live out their existence naturally. Sustainable farming also supports the diversity of the genetic heritage of species. Industrial egg production, one may conclude, is unhealthy for humans and animals. Such a large number of chickens kept in close quarters leads to industry practices such as de-beaking. The practices of routine starvation and light therapy to get the chickens to molt and start producing eggs again are also inhumane. There are human health concerns that have to do with poor air quality in the barns and unsafe levels of nitrogen in the large amounts of highly concentrated waste created by keeping so many chickens so close together. This is all in contrast to the relative ease of raising chickens on a family farm. Chickens require little feed because they eat various plants and insects when kept outside. The only welfare concerns involved with traditional egg production are to keep predators away. The simplest solution appears to be the best solution in terms of animal welfare. Give chickens access to their basic needs and this will solve the problem of animal suffering without creating the problems of industrial agriculture. Egg machines would necessarily be products of industry. They would be a radical departure from the husbandry ethic that existed before the advent of the factory farm. Often the husbandry ethic is defined simply as “We take care of the animals and the animals take care of us.” In so far as egg machines are part of the factory farm system, all of the industrial ills mentioned would remain the same or be worse. As rational creatures that are concerned about the future, we should support those choices that support sustainable methods of food production.

162

8  Ethical Puzzles

1.7  Case Study 7: The Legitimate Use of Water This case could be about any Western state, or any state west of the 100th meridian, although it is based on actual events and institutions in Colorado. The case is about water issues in the West, but the issues are not unique to Colorado. The facts have been expanded to create a case and the issues that are the subject of this presentation. 1.7.1  Background The State of Colorado operates a lottery. The proceeds from the lottery go to the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) trust fund. GOCO receives 50% of all lottery proceeds, its only source of funds. In 1994 GOCO began using the funds to issue grants. GOCO annually distributes more than $60 million. The program has invested $1.2 billion in more than 5200 projects in all 64 counties. The remainder of lottery proceeds is divided between the Conservation Trust Fund and Colorado State Parks. GOCO has no control over the Conservation Trust Fund or the state parks. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) responsibility is to oversee the “appropriation, acquisition and protection of in-stream flow and natural lake level water rights to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.” [Emphasis added.] The board was established in 1973 by Senate Bill 97, which also created the state’s in-stream flow program and gave exclusive control of in-stream flows to the CWCB. According to the board’s policy statement, its programs are designed to “effectively implement a balance between man and the environment.” Balance is not defined. By statute the CWCB is vested with the exclusive authority to appropriate water rights to preserve the natural environment, including in-stream flows. Whether its efforts and oversight create a “balance” is arguable. The state law authorizes the CWCB to acquire existing water rights on a voluntary basis to preserve the natural environment, preserve in-stream flows, and establish what the board regards as a “balance.” If it sees fit, the CWCB may acquire water rights and interests in water by purchase, bequest, lease exchange, or other contractual agreement. But lacking a definition of “balance between man and the environment” cited in CWCB’s policy statement, and, second, given the board’s exclusive statutory control of in-stream flows, no other institution or agency can force the CWCB to maintain in-stream flows and maintain healthy riparian systems. GOCO’s share of lottery proceeds may be up to 50%. GOCO’s policy statement claims the following: GOCO...dedicates a portion of state lottery proceeds to projects that "preserve, protect, and enhance Colorado’s wildlife, parks, rivers, trails, and open spaces.” Grant applications must be within the spirit of this role and pursuant to the public task assigned to GOCO because it operates as a public trust fund with defined goals. Needless to say, many environmental groups are drawn to this abundant funding source and are among those who seek GOCO grants to finance a variety of projects.

13 Background

163

Colorado, like all Western states, is suffering a drought. In-stream flows have been reduced and caused severe adverse effects. The reductions are a threat to non-­ human species within the variety of life in riparian structures that depend on adequate in-stream flows. Many private groups and environmentalists have become alarmed at the in-stream flow reductions and the effects on non-human species. The members of Trout Unlimited, a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to healthy rivers and streams to provide habitat for fish, are among those concerned about reduced in-stream flows. Trout Unlimited success in protecting fish also guarantees healthy habitats for many other species, e.g., bears, insects, elk, birds, beavers, etc. Its mission statement says “Trout Unlimited’s mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America’s trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds.” Fulfilling that mission protects far more than fish. Given GOCO’s resources, Trout Unlimited joined with other environmental and wildlife groups to apply for a GOCO grant so that it could purchase water rights with the grant funds and use the water to protect and increase in-stream flow in many of Colorado’s recreational waterways. 1.7.2  Issues GOCO denied the grant request. There were several factors in the denial: ① First, GOCO’s board members who review all grant applications were pressured by CWCB not to issue grants to purchase water rights for in-stream flows. A CWCB board member, said, “It’s poor practice and bad business for GOCO to issue grants for purchasing in-stream flows.” CWCB cited its exclusive control over in-stream flows. CWCB used informal channels to remind GOCO’s grant reviewers of CWCB’s right to force other organizations and agencies to transfer all rights to the board if the rights were acquired to enhance or maintain in-­ stream flows. That is, those rights must be transferred to CWCB in view of CWCB’s exclusive statutory control over in-stream flows. CWCB has complete autonomy to decide how to use those water rights and can refuse the transfer or, second, can refuse to use transferred water rights, whatever the source, to increase or maintain in-stream flows. The board can exercise its right of refusal even though the purchase and transfer to CWCB was aimed at increasing or maintaining flows. Again, that right of refusal rests on CWCB’s exclusive statutory control over flows. ② Second, CWCB tends to see any emphasis on in-stream flows for environmental reasons as a potential obstacle to what the board deems to be a proper utilization of the state’s water resources. The State Commissioner of Agriculture is a board member, but his view of proper water usage is understandably biased in favor of agricultural pursuits. It is a bias that diminishes the importance of in-stream flows to maintain a healthy habitat for fish and a healthy riparian habitat for dependent species. The Director of the Division of Parks and Wildlife is also a board member. What is to be noted is that among the nine CWCB board mem-

164

8  Ethical Puzzles

bers, there are no members who represent environmental organizations. A CWCB member said that grants from GOCO to acquire water rights to maintain in-­ stream flows would be a policy that “…keeps Colorado from fully utilizing its water supply.” Other critics of the attempt to acquire water rights with a GOCO grant claim that rights to enhance or maintain in-stream flows take water away from agricultural and municipal use. These two factors are the basis for GOCO’s denial of the grant. The implementation of CWCB’s exclusive control does have a statutory basis but illuminates CWCB’s bias. The emphasis on agricultural and municipal interests reflect a bias on the board that agricultural and municipal uses take priority over riparian systems and over all of the dependent species in that system. Presumably “municipal uses” include water for such things as municipal golf courses that are seen as an economic benefit and hence are included in the umbrella of high priority given to municipalities. Golf courses operated by municipalities are an enterprise with an “overall benefit,” which should share the high priority. In short, to allow Trout Unlimited and other environmental groups to purchase and use water rights to enhance or maintain in-stream flows would undermine a jealously-guarded power that belongs to CWCB. Second, it would establish a nonstatutory and non-CWCB priority that competes with the priorities now dictated by CWCB and enjoyed by agriculture and municipalities. CWCB claims that it is interested in in-stream flows, but CWBC’s chairman said the board never intended to “actively participate in the water market to acquire in-stream flows.” He commented that “If entities pursue in-stream flow rights or want to transfer rights to the board, CWCB will analyze and see if it can be integrated into the in-stream flow program.” That means that the offering of purchased water rights from, say, Trout Unlimited could be rejected by CWCB as not within the scope of their overall program or not within the CWCB spirit of “aiding in the protection and development of the waters of the state.” The offering of water rights could be rejected. The mission statement of CWCB states: “Conserve, develop, protect and manage Colorado’s water for present and future generations.” The question is whether the protection and maintenance of in-stream flows and riparian systems is to the benefit of present and future generations. Promoting agricultural and municipal interests is seen by CWCB as the better way of benefitting present and future generations. Trout Unlimited filed suit to set aside GOCO’s refusal to give a grant for purchasing water rights in order to maintain in-stream flows. The arguments in the lawsuit are the following: 1. The court should find that issuing a grant to Trout Unlimited would be within the spirit of GOCO’s public mission and trust, viz., to spend lottery funds to “preserve, protect, and enhance Colorado’s wildlife, parks, rivers, trails, and open space.” 2. The court should enjoin CWCB from pressuring GOCO’s grant officers to reject grant applications that seek funds to buy water rights for the purpose of enhancing or maintaining in-stream flows.

14 Issues

165

3. The court should find that the denial of the grant to Trout Unlimited is not rooted in any demonstrable resistance or objections by those who purchase lottery tickets and who are the ultimate source of GOCO’s funds. The source of the funds is not from tax revenues. Hence the statute that established CWCB and its exclusive control over in-stream flows is an exclusive control that should be limited to the use of tax funds but not lottery revenues. The court is urged to find that purchasers of lottery tickets give implicit consent to using revenues to enhance environmental pursuits, including adequate in-stream flows and healthy riparian systems. 4. Allowing the CWCB to decide all in-stream flow issues is a policy that favors municipal interests and agricultural interests. It is a policy that diminishes the importance of riparian and ecological systems and assigns a low priority to those systems. The priorities assigned to agriculture and municipalities tend to encourage the use of water resources for frivolous uses of water, e.g., golf courses and growing corn for meat animals. None of those pursuits and priorities are in the interest of future generations. Their assigned importance violates CWCB’s own mission statement to protect and manage water for future generations. Irrigated corn for cattle and watered golf courses fulfill CWCB’s priority policies but are not on the interest for what CWCB’s own mission statement calls “future generations.” 5. Next, CWCB, by favoring agriculture and municipal pursuits ignores its own policy statement that claims the CWCB is to “preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.” It is clear that the agricultural and municipal pressures take precedence, and hence the board is totally autonomous in determining what constitutes “reasonable degree.” That internal determination of “reasonable degree” means the CWCB has the power to diminish any priority assigned to wildlife habitat and call it “reasonable.” Hence the court should let stand CWCB’s discretion in establishing goals and its concern for agriculture and municipalities. On the other hand, the court should order an invalidation of CWCB’s exclusive statutory control over in-stream flows. The court should order that GOCO should be allowed to represent other interests and other priorities by issuing grants to purchase water rights to enhance and/or maintain in-stream flows. 6. The court should order the establishment of an independent panel to determine an amount GOCO can issue in grants to purchase water rights to enhance or maintain in-stream flows. That amount should be compatible with other GOCO preservation programs so that the other GOCO programs are not crippled by lack of adequate flow. For example, GOCO funds outdoor recreation programs, but reduced in-stream flows can cripple those programs. Hence the court-appointed independent panel should have representatives from environmental groups in order to assure that grant funds spent for water rights and in-stream flows are adequate to support GOCO’s other environmental programs, e.g., “enhancing Colorado’s wildlife,” as GOCO’s policy statement cites as a goal. 7. If there is a case when water rights are transferred to CWCB by a GOCO grantee to enhance CWCB’s own in-stream flow program, the court should order CWCB

166

8  Ethical Puzzles

to utilize the water rights in the way the GOCO grantee specifies at the time of transfer to CWCB. 8. The court should find that boards with exclusive powers and narrow priorities do not represent the interests of other species. It is morally accepted that others can represent those incapable of asserting rights. For example, others can speak for the handicapped or comatose who are unable to present a case on their own and pursuant to their interests. The principle has been extended to represent a stand of trees, for example (Stone 197414). Fish depend on adequate flow; bears depend on fish; birds depend on trees and insects that flourish when flows are adequate, etc. The court should extend the moral principle so that species dependent on riparian health are represented. 9. Pursuant to the court’s recognition that habitats and ecological systems need representation, the court should mandate that the makeup of the CWCB include a representative(s) from environmental organizations. All species in the riparian structure should be represented with spokespersons on the board charged with “development of the waters of the state.” 1.7.3  The Challenge Give clear moral arguments to support or refute the nine provisions of Trout Unlimited’s law suit against GOCO.  What ethical question(s) posed in this case must be answered? Answers should include a normative word such as should or ought. Give reasons that justify and facts that support your answer. Write one moral premise that supports your answer.

1.8  C  ase Study 8: Possums—Genetic Engineering and Protecting the Environment Possums15 (opossums in the United States) (Didelphis virginiana) are omnivorous, tree-dwelling mammals with a rat-like prehensile tail. Females carry their young in a pouch. Possums are active at night and usually pretend to be dead when caught in a trap, leading to the colloquial usage—to play possum. Possums are regarded as pests by almost everyone in New Zealand. They were brought to New Zealand from Australia in 1837 by European settlers who wanted to establish a fur trade. As has happened in so many cases when a new species is introduced, they quickly become pests. Now brush-tailed possums are overrunning the country because there are no native competitors that will naturally keep the possum population in check. New

 Stone, C. D. 1974. Should Trees have Standing? Toward legal rights for natural objects. Los Altos, CA, W. Kaufmann, Inc. 102 p. 15  Much of the material in this case study is taken from May, M. 2005. Pandora’s Little Pill. Orion. January/February. p. 8. 14

15  The Challenge

167

Zealand’s unique, diverse island ecosystem is being affected by an estimated 70 million possums. Possums eat the eggs of the rare, native Kokako bird, destroy entire canopies of rare native trees (e.g., the rata and the kamahi), and may transmit bovine tuberculosis to beef and dairy cattle, thereby threatening those export industries. Most New Zealanders detest them and will run them over on the road, if possible. Shooting, trapping, and poisoning have not been effective long-term control techniques. However the marvel of genetic engineering has now made it possible to administer birth control to nuisance animals, such as the possum. New Zealand scientists have incorporated possum contraceptives into vegetables the possums eat and scientists project that the possum population could be reduced by as much as 70%. Seventy percent of New Zealanders oppose the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the islands. In spite of the extent of public opposition to the introduction of GMOs, New Zealand’s government lifted the regulations that previously had prohibited research on GMOs outside laboratories or in carefully regulated field trials. Now the genetically engineered vegetables used to produce the possum contraceptive may be grown in New Zealand. Currently the engineered vegetables are imported from Australia where the possum is an endangered species. New Zealand’s Ministry for Environment has concluded that the potential “impacts on individual industries  — especially the agriculture industry  — remain significantly large.” Because possums are a real, not a potential problem, some New Zealand scientists believe the risks of doing nothing to control them are far greater than the perceived risk of genetic engineering. At least one farmer is not so sure. He says “Tell them go test it in America, the come back to us when they know it works.” Maybe that is a good idea because possums are not pests in the United States, which has other invasive species problems. 1.8.1  The Challenge What ethical question(s) posed in this case must be answered? Answers should include a normative word such as should or ought. Give reasons that justify and facts that support your answer. Write one moral premise that supports your answer.

Index

A Advantages, 9, 17, 18, 25, 34, 36–39, 41, 44, 123, 125, 150 Agricultural, 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25–45, 47–49, 51–54, 56, 59, 61, 63–72, 74–77, 79–83, 85–90, 94–99, 101–105, 108–119, 121, 123–125, 129, 134, 135, 137, 138, 141, 143–152, 163–165 Agricultural practices, 2, 3, 12, 14, 31, 66, 68, 69, 75, 85, 96, 108, 115, 117, 142 Agricultural societies, 101 Agriculture, 1–4, 7, 8, 10–15, 17, 18, 23–52, 54–56, 59, 60, 63–91, 108–119, 121, 122, 124–126, 129, 133–144, 151–153, 158, 160, 161, 163–165, 167 Agriculture’s Ethical Horizon, 9, 88 Agrochemicals, 19, 35, 36, 44, 46, 77, 86 Agronomy, 1, 7, 8, 12, 101 American agriculture, 6, 13, 29, 113 Animals, 5, 13, 18, 36, 56, 57, 65, 66, 70–73, 76, 78–80, 96, 100, 101, 108, 112, 113, 116, 125, 126, 141, 155–161, 165, 167 Antibiotics, 40, 70, 112, 158, 161 B Bailey, 68, 85 Berry, T., 17 Berry, W., 1, 2, 5, 10, 96, 134, 149, 152, 153 Billions, 24, 35, 37, 39, 52, 53, 58, 63, 67, 68, 72, 79, 81, 86, 113, 116, 125, 142, 151, 153, 162

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. L. Zimdahl, Agricultural Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48935-9

Biodiversity, 42, 71, 80 Bioenergy, 80 Biological determinism, 59 Biosphere, 59 Biotech, 2, 73, 87 Biotechnologies, 4, 13, 32, 66, 72–78, 80, 87–89 Blood, sweat, and tears, 23–24 Bolley, 32 Bordeaux, 32 Borlaug, N., 63, 64 British, 23, 30, 54, 121 Bronowski, J., 55, 60, 65, 85 Buddhist, 107 Businesses, 15, 16, 27, 29, 37, 56, 60, 97–101, 110, 115, 122, 126, 129–132, 134, 136, 138–140, 146, 150, 163 C CAFO, 72 Capital, 2, 12, 16, 68, 81, 97, 111, 117, 134 Capitalism, 37, 57 Cars, 3, 25, 76, 79, 113, 144 Carson, R., 7, 8, 19, 22, 43, 65, 76 Case studies, 48, 117, 121, 123–167 Cassandras, 53–56 Census, 27–29, 52 Central norm, 12 CEO, 17, 58, 61 Chemicals, 2, 3, 7, 12, 19, 26–33, 36, 37, 41, 42, 46, 69, 70, 97, 108, 111, 116, 117, 123, 125, 126, 141, 142, 151 Chief executive, 58

169

170 Children, 4, 54, 55, 57–59, 78, 100, 109, 128, 130, 131, 134, 135, 143, 144, 146, 147, 149 Classroom, 115 Climates, 18, 19, 22, 24, 55, 63, 66, 107, 108, 111, 112 Cloning, 18, 72, 78 Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), 12, 18, 63, 77–80, 89 Codes of ethics, 99 College of Agriculture, 94, 96 Colleges, 15–17, 21, 33, 54, 94–99, 101, 109, 113–115 Common cause, 14 Companies, 16, 17, 22, 27, 36, 41, 58, 78, 97, 100, 109 Concerns, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 14, 28, 30, 31, 37, 39, 40, 42, 66–78, 81, 82, 94, 99, 100, 104, 108, 115, 123, 124, 126, 138, 148, 152, 153, 157–161, 165 Conundrum of consumption, 93 Corn, 3, 18, 27, 35–37, 41, 69, 73, 77, 79, 80, 113, 123, 134, 149, 150, 161, 165 Cornell, 7, 8, 16, 33 Costs, 8, 11, 13, 27, 28, 34, 37–39, 41–44, 56, 57, 59, 64, 65, 71, 72, 81, 97, 103, 109, 112, 113, 125, 126, 142–144, 146, 150, 151, 158–160 Creative destruction, 48 Critical thinking, 11 Cultures, 15–18, 46, 57–59, 64, 81, 83, 103, 133–135 D DDT, 7, 76 Debate, 13, 14, 30, 40, 55, 56, 64, 67, 74, 75, 78, 95, 99, 110, 117, 142 Democratic, 3, 18, 52, 82, 147 Deontology, 103, 121, 127–128, 132–133, 140, 142–143, 148, 154, 159–161 Desertification, 24 Dilemmas, 1, 13, 54, 56, 81, 94, 102, 109, 122 Disadvantages, 37–44, 54, 125 Disciplines, 2–4, 11, 12, 21, 31, 44, 93–106, 111, 150 E Economic system, 57, 58 Ecosystems, 18, 19, 42, 48, 55, 64, 66, 71, 80, 81, 93, 107, 126, 138, 141, 153, 158, 161, 167

Index Egg machines, 5, 122, 154–161 Energy, 28, 32, 36–38, 48, 71, 81, 97 Entomology, 12, 31 Entrepreneurs, 34, 63, 136 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 9, 10, 19, 26, 124, 150, 153, 154 Environments, 3–5, 12–15, 23, 31, 40–44, 47, 53, 56, 59, 64–66, 69, 75–78, 81, 103, 108, 109, 111, 113, 125–128, 139, 141, 145, 146, 155, 162, 165–167 Era, 23–30, 32, 33, 46, 104 Ethanol, 3, 73, 113 Ethical foundation, 4, 11, 12, 83, 103, 104, 115 Ethics, 1, 2, 4, 7–22, 71, 75, 80, 81, 93–106, 115, 117, 156, 161 Exploitation, 2, 13, 57, 69–71 Externalities, 44, 49, 65, 84 F Families, 5, 9, 13, 23, 27, 29, 36, 58, 79, 94, 107, 122, 125, 126, 129, 133–145, 147, 148, 150, 153, 154, 160, 161 Famine, 23, 52, 55, 147 Farmers, 2, 3, 7, 8, 14, 23, 25, 27–30, 32–34, 37, 38, 41, 52, 60, 67, 68, 74, 76, 80, 82, 96, 97, 101, 109, 113, 114, 123, 124, 127, 128, 130, 132, 134–144, 146–150, 152, 153, 158, 159, 161, 167 Farms, 2, 4, 5, 13, 23–25, 27–30, 32, 34, 37, 39, 52, 67, 70, 72, 79, 114, 116, 122–126, 128–145, 147–150, 153, 154, 156–161 Fears, 11, 14, 23, 56, 69, 74, 83, 112, 115, 130, 150, 153 Feed the world, 2, 13, 42, 55, 70, 75, 105, 109, 116, 118, 139, 142 Fertig, 7, 8 Fertilizers, 5, 13, 25–27, 32, 33, 35–37, 44, 56, 67–69, 74, 76, 82, 112, 113, 116, 135, 137, 141, 143–145, 149–152, 154, 160, 161 Friedman, 21, 24, 45, 55, 60, 85, 104 G General public, 2, 3, 14, 70, 76, 125 Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), 2, 3, 40, 72–78, 89, 102, 167 Genetic engineering, 5, 18, 72, 74, 76, 87, 88, 90, 137, 139, 166–167 Genetic modifications, 12, 66, 72, 77, 138 Germany, 30, 36, 61, 83

Index Glyphosate, 36, 69, 78, 79 Goals, 3, 14, 15, 38, 53, 56, 59, 60, 64, 66, 67, 72, 76, 77, 81, 82, 94–96, 98–101, 103, 104, 109, 114, 115, 117, 134, 142, 143, 162, 165 Gould, 18, 22, 43, 50, 64 Governments, 3, 15, 16, 19, 27, 28, 34, 35, 42, 52, 79, 113, 136, 141, 144–148, 150, 159, 167 Growth, 16, 25, 27, 28, 31, 33–35, 42, 47, 52–56, 59–61, 69, 70, 74, 81, 111, 112, 116, 124, 130, 133, 137, 151, 161 H Haber-Bosch, 25, 27 Harms, 2, 3, 7, 10, 13, 31, 42, 64, 66, 67, 69, 77, 78, 80, 93, 108, 124–126, 136, 142, 153, 158, 159 Herbicide degradation, 11 Herbicides, 4, 7, 9, 10, 31–42, 44, 47, 50, 68, 69, 73, 78, 79, 89, 101, 123–128, 141, 143, 149, 153 High fructose corn syrup (HFCS), 113 Higher education, 15, 16, 21, 22, 97, 98, 105 Histories, 11, 23–52, 54, 58, 60, 63, 66, 83, 84, 87, 98, 104, 145, 153 Hobbes, 23, 24, 45 Homo sapiens, 66 Hunger, 42, 51–53, 60, 65, 72, 76, 81, 83, 140, 144, 145, 147 Hybrid corn, 27 I Ignores, 2, 3, 13, 14, 32, 54, 56, 75, 76, 94, 103, 111, 136, 148, 165 Inaction, 5, 122, 128–133 Insecticides, 7, 31, 33–35, 39, 42, 68, 69, 124, 143 Insects, 19, 22, 30–32, 42, 69, 73, 74, 78, 112, 113, 116, 125, 141, 143, 145, 158, 161, 163, 166 Instrumental, 17, 81 Invasive, 5, 12, 167 Invitation, 2, 17, 109–110 Irrigation, 32, 36, 37, 44, 67, 68, 79, 86, 112, 113, 135, 143, 145, 151 J Justification, 1–4, 12, 14, 15, 59, 73, 83, 102, 156–158

171 K Kant, 121, 127 Kuhn, 110 L Labor, 25, 27, 29–34, 38–39, 46, 57, 71, 123, 125, 126, 134, 137, 143, 144, 155 Land-grant, 34, 95, 97, 98, 109, 113–115, 137, 156 Large farms, 28 Law, 4, 17, 57, 59, 96, 99, 100, 106, 118, 121, 127, 133, 140, 148, 160, 162, 166 Leopold, A., 65, 84, 152 Liberal arts, 8 Limits, 16, 17, 43, 56, 57, 59–61, 69, 80, 97, 156, 158 M Malnutrition, 52, 58, 76 Malthus, 54–59 Mammals, 55, 166 Markets, 3, 16, 17, 35, 36, 39, 67, 68, 71, 73, 78, 83, 144–146, 164 Marx, 4, 54, 57–59, 61, 103 Meadows, 59–61 Mechanical, 25–26, 53, 60, 86 Medical, 40, 50, 84, 99, 100, 105 Migrant labor, 2, 13, 70 Mobile, 9, 124, 152 Monoculture, 40–41, 141, 142 Moral claim, 2, 13 Moral dilemmas, 2, 4, 5, 13, 44, 83, 86, 95, 99, 109, 115, 121 Moral dimensions, 2, 111, 121 Moral obligation, 13, 42, 51, 52, 56, 63, 149, 152, 159 Moral philosophy, 1, 3, 10, 102, 103 Morals, 2, 3, 14, 16, 51, 52, 55, 56, 63–91, 94, 95, 97–101, 103, 104, 107, 109, 112–117, 121, 122, 125, 131–133, 137, 140, 142, 153, 154, 156, 158–161, 166, 167 Moral stance, 12, 101 N Nature, 19, 21, 32, 34, 38, 55, 65, 66, 68, 75, 77, 83, 84, 103, 105, 109, 126, 141, 152, 154–156 Norms, 16, 41, 83, 96, 97, 103

172 O Organic agriculture, 2, 116, 117, 119 Organophosphate’s, 7 P Parables, 107 Paradigms, 44, 98, 110–111, 117 Paradox, 4, 42–50 Persistence, 9, 14, 40 Pesticides, 4, 10, 13, 19, 20, 30–32, 34–44, 48–50, 56, 64, 66–72, 74–77, 86, 97, 108, 112, 113, 116, 123–126, 137–139, 141, 143–145, 150–152, 160, 161 Philosophers, 23, 102, 103, 117, 119, 121, 154 Philosophy, 3, 64, 93–95 Pioneer, 27 Plant pathology, 8, 12, 31 Political action, 2 Pollution, 2, 13, 42, 43, 64, 72, 108, 126, 151, 158, 161 Pollyannas, 53–55, 57 Populations, 2–4, 10, 13, 14, 24–30, 40, 42, 52–60, 63, 64, 69, 70, 74, 76, 80, 82, 104, 108, 109, 117, 125, 127, 130, 137, 140, 142, 143, 152, 153, 155, 166, 167 Positivism, 64, 80, 95 Poverty, 24, 52, 81, 146 Problems, 2–5, 7, 10, 11, 16–18, 30–32, 36, 40–44, 51, 52, 54–59, 61, 63–65, 67, 70, 72, 74–76, 81–83, 93, 96, 99, 101, 103, 104, 108–111, 113, 114, 116, 121, 124, 127, 128, 140, 142, 144, 145, 152, 154, 157, 158, 160, 161, 167 Production, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 20, 23, 25–27, 29–31, 34, 37–39, 42–44, 48, 52, 53, 55–57, 59, 60, 63–69, 71, 74, 75, 78–82, 90, 103, 109, 111–113, 115, 116, 124, 127, 134–140, 142, 145–147, 150, 152–154, 156, 158–161 Professional ethics, 4, 63, 100–103 Profits, 13, 14, 23, 34, 37–38, 68, 112, 113, 123, 126, 134, 135, 138, 139, 141, 149, 150, 152 Psychology, 4, 18, 99, 101 Public, 2–5, 9, 13–17, 34, 39, 40, 66, 73, 74, 76, 78, 81–83, 98, 99, 104, 109, 110, 114–116, 123, 125, 138, 150, 162, 164, 167 Purposes, 2, 4, 10, 11, 16, 38, 51, 52, 73, 75, 97, 109–110, 114, 128, 157, 164 Puzzles, 4, 5, 121–167

Index Q Quest, 10–12, 16, 55, 70, 96, 159, 160 Questions, 2–4, 7, 8, 10, 12–15, 17, 33, 38, 42, 43, 51–53, 66, 67, 69, 75, 81–83, 90, 94–103, 109, 114, 115, 117, 121, 122, 131, 153, 160, 164, 166, 167 R Rational, 14, 16, 58, 59, 83, 100, 104, 115, 127, 128, 132, 143, 154, 159, 161 Reasons, 8, 15, 16, 33, 55, 64, 71, 79, 83, 95, 99, 103, 106, 108, 114, 122–125, 128, 131, 132, 135–137, 139, 144, 146, 147, 149, 152, 156, 157, 159, 161, 163, 166, 167 Research, 2, 3, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, 23, 27, 29–31, 36, 39, 41, 44, 53, 63, 67, 72, 74–76, 78, 81, 83, 91, 97, 98, 100–102, 110, 111, 114–117, 150, 155, 157–159, 167 Resilience, 42, 64 Resistance, 12, 25, 36, 40, 42, 49, 64, 70, 73, 74, 77, 78, 89, 101, 104, 128, 145, 158, 165 Revolutions, 5, 17, 27, 33, 42, 49, 54, 56, 59, 63, 83, 84, 103, 110, 118, 143, 144, 146–148 Rights, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14, 42, 44, 52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 65, 68, 70–72, 74, 77, 83, 98–100, 102, 103, 107, 110, 112, 117, 121, 131, 133, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 162–166 S Sales, 27, 28, 34–36, 39, 42, 69, 72, 77, 79, 89, 130, 135, 147 Schools, 24, 56, 99, 100, 114, 134–136, 146 Scientists, 3, 5, 8, 12, 14, 17–19, 23, 27, 31–33, 42, 44, 63–65, 70, 71, 74, 76, 80–83, 88, 90, 94–96, 102, 103, 110, 111, 114, 124, 149, 150, 152, 155, 158, 167 Silent Spring, 7, 10, 19, 22, 43, 65, 76, 84 Snow, C.P., 17 Social problems, 2, 54, 58 Social system, 4, 57–59 Societal pressure, 2 Societies, 1, 3, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 23, 36, 44, 54, 56, 57, 59, 63, 65–67, 72, 76, 78, 80–83, 96, 101–104, 106, 107, 109, 114, 123, 124, 133, 135, 137, 145, 146, 160

Index Sprays, 5, 31, 122–128 STEM courses, 96 Sugar, 43, 64, 73 Sugar beets, 8, 73, 123, 134 Surveys, 35, 40, 90, 95–96, 101 Sustainability, 2–4, 13, 64, 66, 67, 69, 85, 86, 101, 109, 111, 116, 117, 161 T 2,4,5-T, 9, 10, 20, 47 Teachings, 9, 11, 19, 83, 98, 99, 105, 115 Technologies, 2–5, 10, 12–16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 27, 30, 32–34, 36–41, 43, 44, 50, 56, 59, 63–65, 67, 69, 72–74, 76–78, 81, 82, 84, 90, 91, 96, 97, 100–103, 108, 110, 111, 114, 135, 137, 139, 140, 143–145, 147, 148, 150, 154 Teratogenicity, 10 Theories, 1, 3, 57, 86, 100, 103, 117, 121, 125, 137, 139 Tillage, 25, 33, 36–39, 74, 113, 123 Times, 2, 3, 6, 14, 17–19, 23, 24, 27, 31–33, 36–38, 40, 42, 44, 51, 55–58, 63, 68, 69, 71, 72, 82, 83, 89, 93, 98, 99, 103, 107, 110, 112, 119, 121, 123, 127, 131–134, 140, 144, 145, 148, 150, 157, 166 Toxicity, 39, 78 Truths, 15, 16, 82, 83, 102, 107 U Under nourishment, 52, 53 United Nations, 24, 39, 49, 52, 67, 85, 86 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN/FAO), 52

173 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 52 Universities, 2, 7–9, 15–17, 19, 21, 22, 33, 34, 50, 60, 64, 71, 76, 86, 93–99, 105, 109, 114–116, 118, 119, 122, 123, 135, 137, 144, 145, 147, 149, 150, 156 Utilitarians, 67, 74, 121, 125–127, 131, 132, 136–140, 147–148, 154, 156–159 V Veterinary, 100, 115 Vietnam, 9 W Waste, 38, 53, 72, 76, 108, 136, 151, 158, 161 Waters, 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 19, 24, 28, 32, 42, 43, 56, 58, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 79, 80, 82, 86, 89, 107, 108, 112, 116, 122–126, 128, 129, 135, 137, 143, 145, 150, 151, 155, 158, 162–166 Weed control, 7–22, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 46–50, 86 Weed science, 4, 7, 9–12, 20, 31, 33, 36, 44, 47, 48, 50, 78, 89, 94, 101, 102, 105, 106 Weeds, 7, 9, 11, 12, 30–36, 38, 40–42, 44, 46, 47, 49, 69, 70, 78, 89, 101, 113, 116, 123, 125–128, 143–145, 158 Weed scientists, 8, 10, 11, 40, 44 WEIRD nations, 52, 53 World Bank, 24, 45, 61 World population, 4, 10, 38, 42, 45, 51–61, 64, 70, 90, 111, 115, 140 Wrong, 3, 8, 10, 13, 28, 56, 66, 74, 75, 81, 83, 93, 94, 99, 103, 117, 121, 131–133, 154, 156, 160, 161