Bioethics: Comments

Comment on "USDA's MyPlate criticised for "mixing science with the influence of powerful agricultural interests""

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:30:18 -0500

Really enjoyed your lecture today.

My comment about being optimistic due to the burgeoning grassroots food communities was really less about a declaration of vegetarians and vegans being more healthful (though I'd argue that a vegan diet, properly executed is, in fact) than it was an observation that there is a growing number of educated citizens who recognize themselves as having the consumer power to make a difference. I see these groups fueled by self-education and concern for the ethicality of their choices. Certainly, meat-eaters are becoming more conscientious as well as we see a rise in sustainably grown, organic meats and increasing popularity of CSAs,farmers markets. We also see awareness and action on food deserts.

I agree that there is a systematic imbrication of ethically negative forces and that the idea of citizen and consumer has become conflated in a society marked by profit margin. I'm highly aware of the conflation of "rugged individualism" and "my right as an American" with both overt and subversive commercial messaging. My optimism, however, lies in the awareness that to make change, sometimes we have to start by working within the existing system by voting with our dollars.

Including such efforts as part of a complex top down and bottom up approach was the essence of my point.

Grateful for your talk. Wonderful to see you again.

- LORI ANN BEDELL

Comment on "Bryan McDonald on Eating Locally"

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 12:03:57 -0500

Our group felt that all of the issues are important and nothing to be taken lightly - we felt that this issue was of particular importance since it links to several of the other issues and acts as the root of various other problems such as those related to medical, economic, and environmental problems.

We decided that we’d like to see more support for private farms and industries, and less dependence on imports and corporal industries. Goods should be transported the shortest distances possible since it’s A. More economical B. Uses less packaging (or allows for a borrowing system such as that of Myer Dairy’s returnable glass bottle system) and less energy (environmental benefits) which link to less pollution (since crude oil-derived energy makes up the majority of transportation fuel sources). C. There are Health benefits since carbon emissions from transportation are less, and issues discussed in the following paragraphs are prevented or solved.

Goods should be of highest quality, and produced/raised with strong ethics in mind. Traditional farming techniques are often preserved and handed down from generation to generation in family-owned private farms. We believe these values and strong desire to maintain a quality farm (especially when instilled in the farmer over their lifetime through lessons handed down from previous generations that are less familiar/before the time of major corporal farming with modern technology) help maintain animal-right and environmental values.

Also, when we talk about food processing and farm locations outside of the US products and raw materials that come from these places are not always grown or produced with the same quality expectations and work environment as the US holds. The FDA has set some pretty strict regulations, when these regulations are followed and enforced by proper authorities -- it is a lot less likely we’ll experience any issues associated with safety and ethical concerns although there are some concerns in relation to processing and growing techniques we may question. The use of pesticides is legal even though we know that they are harmful -- supporting authentic organic farming and buying items fresh from local areas (cutting the need for far travel) can reduce or even completely remove the need for preservation through dangerous preservation methods such as nitrates used in meats, or unhealthy amounts of salt in canned goods.

In conclusion, we decided if local locations are more efficient, keep quality tradition in the industry, and provide us with the ability to obtain quality goods that are produced, processed, and packaged with our environmental, ethical values that form the framework for prevention of the health concerns associated with the production methods that contradict our values and concerns -- it definitely should be the preferred method of farming and factory distribution.

- Sarah Dills

Comment on "Susan Squier on the Responsibility of Consumers"

Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:24:40 -0500

I am posting this at the request of Marina Stinely:

Question 4: Do we have a responsibility to explore who benefits and who is harmed by the production of the food we eat and, if so, what should each of us do?
Our group felt that this question was one of the most important. We believe that it is crucial for consumers to know where there food comes from and how it is produced. For this, we had to look at the question from a deontological point of view, where it is the duty of the consumer to make sure that their foods are produced ethically. We think that people should become informed on how animals are treated and slaughtered, and the working conditions of the laborers. With this information, then we all can make more informed purchasing decisions. In addition, we discussed how some people may not be able to afford to purchase foods that are ethically produced. In this case we think that the community should work together to help inform the public about ethical foods and in doing so the demand for these products would increase, decreasing the costs for everyone. Overall, we decided that we do have a responsibility to explore the benefits and harms to food production and we all should research the origins of our food so that we can live in an ethically sustainable world.

Group Members: Marina Stinely (recorder), Robert O'Riley (speaker), Jocelin Linares, Becky McAlary, Giselle, Delgado, Ilana Shtivelman

- Mark Fisher

Comment on "Key Issues in Food Ethics: A Paterno Fellows Forum"

Fri, 02 Sep 2011 11:23:26 -0500

I am posting this at the request of Marina Stinely:

Question 4: Do we have a responsibility to explore who benefits and who is harmed by the production of the food we eat and, if so, what should each of us do?

Our group felt that this question was one of the most important. We believe that it is crucial for consumers to know where there food comes from and how it is produced. For this, we had to look at the question from a deontological point of view, where it is the duty of the consumer to make sure that their foods are produced ethically. We think that people should become informed on how animals are treated and slaughtered, and the working conditions of the laborers. With this information, then we all can make more informed purchasing decisions. In addition, we discussed how some people may not be able to afford to purchase foods that are ethically produced. In this case we think that the community should work together to help inform the public about ethical foods and in doing so the demand for these products would increase, decreasing the costs for everyone. Overall, we decided that we do have a responsibility to explore the benefits and harms to food production and we all should research the origins of our food so that we can live in an ethically sustainable world.

Group Members: Marina Stinely (recorder), Robert O'Riley (speaker), Jocelin Linares, Becky McAlary, Giselle, Delgado, Ilana Shtivelman

- Mark Fisher

Comment on "Key Issues in Food Ethics: A Paterno Fellows Forum"

Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:05:57 -0500

Our group chose to discuss the responsibility of government, industry, and individuals in adressing the problem of obesity. The group discussed the government and/or industry limiting food portions in restaurants, but decided against it, because they felt it was too inasive and would hurt potential income for food producers. Another thing discussed was a change in public school lunch and breakfast programs set in place by the government to promote healthier menus and portion sizes. This would also include a revamping of the health and physical education system. Since the government requires these classes already, we felt that it is their responsibility to keep the classes at high standards. Lastly, we agreed that it lays with the people to keep the food industry accountable for supplying cheaper, healthier food to keep obesity low and to educate their children about eating healthy to avoid the consequences of obesity and a poor diet.

- GAVIN CHRISTOPHER GODBOLT

Comment on "Food Ethics: Perspectives from FAO"

Wed, 03 Nov 2010 02:18:12 -0500

The ethical implications and given quandaries in fisheries seemed to me a fascinating series, so I elected to peruse through its respective publication series on FAO's domain site. The publication debriefed about sector-specific issues within the fishery realm, these being 'poverty; the right to food; and overfishing and ecosystem degradation.' What follows the expose of each sector-specific issue is a brief discussion of moral imperatives, given the state of world fisheries.

The authors are collectively agreeing that any implementation of moral principles must remain 'culture-dependent.' To reinforce this point, 'global, generalized prescriptions can only be developed through intensive mechanisms of consultation aimed at identifying the widest common base possible.' Given the complexity of such intent to act, can we realistically anticipate positive change from personal agendas put forth? Well, with the unanimous adoption of The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in 1995 by the FAO Conference, a resounding 'yes' to such an inquiry seems apt. However, principles and standards put forth in The Code are not binding and non-mandatory by its very nature.

With this knowledge, an ethical analysis of the implications of the Code's implementation is of high necessity. Open and free discussion can alleviate conflict of interest in the realm of the fishing industry and help distinguish, as the publication notes, 'between those that serve narrow, selfish interests and those that serve general public interests. Public fora where people can voice their concerns directly...are important, as the outcome of the dialogues, being public, is more likely to be implemented.' For example, policy brainstorming for how to avoid over-exploitation and ensure resource conservation in a just and sustainable fashion; the implications for such conjuring of ideas would be wasted without open and free discussion.

All in all, therein lies much more to the puzzling ethical dimensions of fisheries. Uncontrolled exploitation and absence of uniform, mandated policy has inspired a need for contemporary management and conservation ideologies. The question then begs, who is held liable for modifying any ordinance or decree already in place?

- ADAM TRAVIS GOLDBERG

Comment on "Should We Just 'Eat More Chickin'?"

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:39:21 -0500

Well we could consume more chicken. It is in fact healthier (for the most part) than beef. Also, there is a huge environmental problem with the raising of beef, as shown in the movie HOME (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU). Just because we consume more chicken does not necessarily mean we will cut out beef all together, but I think sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures until we can get things under control.

- KELLY MARIE ACREE

Comment on "Reject Over Easy Eggs"

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:08:41 -0500

For more on how people at Penn State are working to address these issues, you can take a look at this article from Penn State Live http://live.psu.edu/story/48014/email

- Mark Fisher