Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-k78ct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-24T09:19:31.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The role of food ethics in food policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2007

T. Ben Mepham*
Affiliation:
Centre for Applied Bioethics, University of Nottingham, School of Biosciences, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK
*
*Corresponding author:Dr Ben Mepham, The Food Ethics Council, Minster Chambers, Church Street, Southwell, Notts. NG25 0HD, UK, fax +44 115 951 6299, email ben.mepham@nottingham.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Certain developments in the agricultural and food sciences have far-reaching implications for society and the environment, which suggest the need to examine their ethical acceptability as a standard component of technology assessment. Such considerations have led to the emergence of a new academic discipline, food ethics. The present paper describes how ethical theory may be applied to the analysis of the impacts of prospective food biotechnologies to assess potential effects on four 'interest groups', i.e. consumers, producers, treated organisms and the biota (fauna and flora). The principles which structure the framework used, i.e. the ethical matrix, are adapted to the field of agriculture and food from those applied in medical ethics. Use of the ethical matrix is illustrated by applying it to the specific case of bovine somatotrophin, the genetically-engineered protein hormone which is injected into lactating cattle to increase their milk yields. Ethical analysis is seen to depend on a number of critical requirements, i.e. scientific data, non-scientific evidence and predictions, suitably-qualified assessors ('competent moral judges'), the 'world-views' of the assessors and application of the precautionary principle to cope with 'uncertainty'.

Type
Symposium on ‘The ethics of food production and consumption’
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2000

References

Anonymous (1997) rBST labels to follow Illinois settlement. Outlook on Agriculture 26, 279280.Google Scholar
Bauman, DE (1992) Bovine somatotropin: review of an emerging animal technology. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 34323451.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, TL & Childress, JF (1994) Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th ed. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
British Council (1999). Governance and Law: Ethics in Public Life and Corporate Governance. London: British Council.Google Scholar
Burton, JL, McBride, BW, Block, E, Glimm, DR & Kennelly, JJ (1994) A review of bovine growth hormone. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 74, 167201.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office/Office of Science and Technology (1999). The Advisory and Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology: Report from the Government's Review. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Chadwick, R (editor) (1998). Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, vol. 1–4. San Diego, London and Boston: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
European Commission (1999 a) Consumer Policy and Health Protection Directorate: Report on Animal Welfare Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (1999 b) Consumer Policy and Health Protection Directorate: Report on Public Health Aspects of the Use of Bovine Somatotrophin. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2000) COM(2000)1: Communication on the Precautionary Principle. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Gillon, R (1994) The four principles revisited – a reappraisal. In Principles of Healthcare Ethics, pp. 319333 [Gillon, R, editor]. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
House of Commons (1999). Food Standards Bill. Bill 117-EN. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
James, WPT (1997) Food Standards Agency: An Interim Proposal. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Johnson, DE, Ward, GM & Torrent, J (1992) The environmental impact of bovine somatotropin use in dairy cattle. Journal of Environmental Quality 21, 157162.Google Scholar
Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (1998). Food Additive Series no.41, pp. 125146. Rome: WHO.Google Scholar
Kockelkoren, P & Linskens, M (1997) Intrinsic value of plants and animals: from philosophy to implementation. In The Future of DNA, pp. 205217 [Wirz, J and Lammerts van Beuren, E, editors]. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Krimsky, S & Wrubel, R (1996) Agricultural Biotechnology and the Environment. Urbana, IL and Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
MacNiven, D (1993). Creative Morality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mepham, TB (1996 a) Ethical impacts of biotechnology in dairying. In Progress in Dairy Science, pp. 375395 [Phillips, CJC, editor]. Wallingford, Oxon: CAB International.Google Scholar
Mepham, TB (editor) (1996 b) Ethical analysis of food biotechnologies: an evaluative framework. In Food Ethics, pp. 101119 London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mepham, TB (1998) Agricultural ethics. In Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, vol. 1, pp. 95110 [Chadwick, R, editor]. San Diego, London and Boston: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mepham, TB (2000) A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: the Ethical Matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12, 165176.Google Scholar
Mepham, TB, Moore, CJ & Crilly, RE (1996) An ethical analysis of the use of xenografts in human transplant surgery. Bulletin of Medical Ethics 116, 1318.Google Scholar
Millar, KM, Tomkins, SM & Mepham, TB (1999) Ethical attitudes of consumers and farmers to the use of two dairy technologies: bovine somatotrophin and automated milking systems. Proceedings of the British Society for Animal Science p. 195.Google Scholar
Monsanto Company (1994). Posilac® Package Insert. St Louis, MO: Monsanto Company.Google Scholar
Nienhaus, A (1997) BST and the consumers. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 319, 10.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M (1969) Knowing and Being. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Rawls, J (1951) Outline of a decision procedure for ethics. Philosophical Review 60, 177197.Google Scholar
Rawls, J (1972) A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J (1993) Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Tauer, LW & Knoblauch, WA (1997) The empirical impact of bovine somatotropin on New York dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 80, 10921097.Google Scholar
Taylor, FW (1947) Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
US Government (1994). Use of Bovine Somatotropin (BST) in the United States: Its Potential Effects. US Government Printing Office. Washington, DC:Google Scholar
Van Amburgh, ME, Galton, DM, Bauman, DE & Everett, RW (1997) Management and economics of extended calving intervals with use of bovine somatotropin. Livestock Production Science 50, 1528.Google Scholar
White, TC, Madsen, KS, Hintz, RL, Sorbet, RH, Collier, RJ, Hard, DL, Hartnell, GF, Samuels, WA, de Kerchove, G & Adriaens, F (1994) Clinical mastitis in cows treated with sometribove (recombinant bovine somatotropin) and its relationship to milk yield. Journal of Dairy Science 77, 22492260.Google Scholar
Willeberg, P (1994) An international perspective on bovine somatotropin and clinical mastitis. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 205, 538541.Google Scholar
Winkler, ER (1993) From Kantianism to Contextualism: the rise and fall of the paradigm theory in bioethics. In Applied Ethics, pp. 343365 [Winkler, ER and Coombs, JR, editors], Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar