Presents a collection of essays written over a period of 15 years by agricultural ethicist Paul B. Thompson. The essays address the practical application of ethics to agriculture in a world faced with issues of increased yield, threatened environment, and the disappearance of the family farm.

The “new” agricultural biotechnologies are presently high-priority items on the national research agenda. The promise of increased efficiency and productivity resulting from products and processes derived from biotech is thought to justify the commitment to R&D. Nevertheless, critics challenge the environmental safety as well as political-economic consequences of particular products of biotech, notably, ice-nucleating bacteria and the bovine growth hormone. In this paper the critics' arguments are analyzed in explicitly ethical terms, and assessed as to their relative merits. In some (...) cases, a principle of “do no foreseeable harm” as well as a clear determination of likely harms would force us to conclude that research, development, and diffusion of a product or process derived from biotechnology is ethically wrong. In all cases, one conclusion that can be reached is that everyone involved in research, development, marketing and adoption of biotech products is responsible for the results of their actions; thus, each individual has a responsibility to consider a broader range of values and goals that effect and are effected by the biotechnology effort. (shrink)

A distinction should be made betweentwo types of ethical problems. A Type I ethicalproblem is one in which there is no consensusas to what is ethical. A Type II ethicalproblem is one in which there is a consensus asto what is ethical, but incentives exist forindividuals to behave unethically. Type Iethical problems are resolved by making,challenging, and reasoning through moralarguments. Type II ethical problems areresolved by changing the institutionalenvironment so that people do not haveincentives to behave unethically. Type Isolutions, however, (...) will not be effective insolving Type II problems. Examples inagriculture and elsewhere show howdistinguishing between Type I and Type IIethical problems will help in theidentification of solutions to ethical issuesin agriculture. (shrink)

A distinction should be made betweentwo types of ethical problems. A Type I ethicalproblem is one in which there is no consensusas to what is ethical. A Type II ethicalproblem is one in which there is a consensus asto what is ethical, but incentives exist forindividuals to behave unethically. Type Iethical problems are resolved by making,challenging, and reasoning through moralarguments. Type II ethical problems areresolved by changing the institutionalenvironment so that people do not haveincentives to behave unethically. Type Isolutions, however, (...) will not be effective insolving Type II problems. Examples inagriculture and elsewhere show howdistinguishing between Type I and Type IIethical problems will help in theidentification of solutions to ethical issuesin agriculture. (shrink)

US livestock agriculture hasdeveloped and intensified according to a strictproductionist model that emphasizes industrialefficiency. Sustainability problems associatedwith this model have become increasinglyevident and more contested. Traditionalapproaches to promoting sustainable agriculturehave emphasized education and outreach toencourage on-farm adoption of alternativeproduction systems. Such efforts build on anunderlying assumption that farmers areempowered to make decisions regarding theorganization and management of theiroperations. However, as vertical coordinationin agriculture continues, especially in theanimal agriculture sectors, this assumptionbecomes less valid. This paper examines how thechanging industrial structure in (...) four USlivestock sectors (poultry, hogs, beef, anddairy) affects possibilities in each forpromoting more sustainable productionpractices. Comparisons between the sectors arebased on the relative ability to employ anintensive pasture or alternative (deep-bedded)housing system, which are widely seen assustainable livestock alternatives. While thehighly integrated poultry sector appearsimpregnable to traditional sustainableagriculture approaches, the cow-calf sub-sectorof the beef industry, non-feedlot dairyoperations, and small parts of the hogindustry, especially in the Midwest, stillretain some potential for effectively targetingthe farmer. Building on the presentation ofbarriers and opportunities in the fourlivestock sectors, the paper concludes byevaluating several structurally-orientedapproaches to promoting a more sustainablelivestock agriculture that should complementmore traditional approaches. They includedeveloping alternative coordinated networks inlivestock agriculture, pressing integrators topermit more sustainable production practices,and working for legislation that shifts moredecision-making within integrated systemstowards growers. (shrink)