Writing a Report that Analyzes and Synthesizes Opposing Ethical Arguments

User Generated

km0320

Writing

Description

Background and Context for the Assignment: A common writing assignment in the fields of science, engineering and the social sciences is to write a research “review” paper or “research report.” In this kind of project, writers are usually required to conduct preliminary research on a topic or research question for which there is no universally agreed upon “right” answer. The purpose of this kind of report is to analyze the topic’s importance and synthesize different comparative perspectives on the topic. Writing in this kind of genre is expected to be concise clear, accurate, and impartial.

To help you prepare for this assignment, you will spend the first few weeks reading about, discussing, analyzing and synthesizing arguments involving controversial food-related questions. For example, is food insecurity unethical? What are the most ethical strategies for addressing food insecurity? Can technological, chemical or bioengineering innovations provide ethical solutions? Or do they lead to more unethical consequences that should be avoided? And what about the ways that we treat those who grow and harvest our food? What constitutes the ethical treatment of our farmworkers?

The Writing Prompt: Write a 6-page report that analyzes and synthesizes at least two opposing ethical arguments. Use the following questions for guidance:

1. What is a food related ethical issue for which there seems to be no clear, simple, universal “right” answer?

2. What are some different or competing ethical perspectives on this issue? What is the logical structure of these arguments or viewpoints?

3. What is at stake (now and/or in the future) for this ethical issue?

How will your writing be graded and assessed on this project? The paper will be evaluated based on the following guidelines for writing a successful proposal:

1. A clear and engaging, food-related ethical question and issue

2. An introduction that uses opener strategies, such as a hook, background context and a thesis

3. Clearly organized subsections and/or body paragraphs that present reasons, evidence and analysis of at least two different ethical arguments

4. The use of at least one visual or multimedia illustration to enhance one explanation

5. Smooth integration of sources (minimum 4), a works cited page and an “acknowledgements” statement.

6. Clear, accurate and impartial organization of ideas

The Acknowledgements Statement: While the Works Cited documents all the sources that you use, the Acknowledgements statement allows you to document other sources of help and feedback. This includes any assistance you received at any stage of writing, from your instructor, classmates, friends, and tutors—anyone or any source that has helped you. Including Acknowledgements protects you because it provides a place for you to acknowledge all of the help you have received. If you do not acknowledge the help you’ve received, but we see that you’ve obtained help inappropriately, you will be referred to the Academic Integrity office for review and may face sanctions.

I have attached the sources, you can any four of those sources but must include Martin and Kaplan's articles.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

The World House by Martin Luther King, Jr. Introduction Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968. Ten days earlier, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, author of the classic study The Prophets, introduced him to an assembly of rabbis: “Where in America today do we hear a voice like the voice of the prophets of Israel? Martin Luther King is a sign that God has not forsaken the United States of America. God has sent him to us. His presence is the hope of America. His mission is sacred, his leadership of supreme importance to every one of us. [. . .] Martin Luther King, Jr., is a voice, a vision and a way. [. . .] The whole future of America will depend on the impact and influence of Dr. King.”1 Scholar-activist Vincent Harding, in his book Martin Luther King: The Inconvenient Hero, writes: “[. . .] if there is even a chance that Rabbi Heschel was correct, that the untranquil King and his peacedisturbing vision, words, and deeds hold the key to the future of America, [. . .] for scholars, citizens or celebrants to forget the real man and his deepest implications would be not only faithless, but also suicidal.”2 In the wake of September 11, it makes sense to revisit Dr. King’s writings to discern whether, by heeding his prophetic message, we might prevent future attacks upon this nation. Perhaps the best summation of Dr. King’s teachings is “The World House” chapter of his book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?, published in 1967. This chapter is based on King’s Nobel Peace Prize lecture, delivered at the University of Oslo on December 11, 1964. King worked nearly a month on the lecture and later gave it prominence as the concluding chapter of a book describing the enormous challenges facing humanity. He may well have regarded “The World House” as his most important single speech/essay. Unlike King’s “I Have A Dream” speech or “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” this work is virtually unknown. In “The World House,” Dr. King calls us to: 1) transcend tribe, race, class, nation, and religion to embrace the vision of a World House; 2) eradicate at home and globally the Triple Evils of racism, poverty, and militarism; 3) curb excessive materialism and shift from a “thing”-oriented society to a “people”-oriented society; and 4) resist social injustice and resolve conflicts in the spirit of love embodied in the philosophy and methods of nonviolence. He advocates a Marshall Plan to eradicate global poverty, a living wage, and a guaranteed minimum annual income for every American family. He urges the United Nations to experiment with the use of nonviolent direct action in international conflicts. The final paragraph warns of the “fierce urgency of now” and cautions that this may be the last chance to choose between chaos and community. Following is the complete text of “The World House”chapter,3 in the original language, unedited for gender inclusiveness. Where King speaks of addressing the conditions that breed Communism, we might today substitute “terrorism” or “religious fanaticism.” Consistent with the prophetic tradition, King’s words are difficult to hear, demanding painful introspection. But he also holds out a vision and promise for the future that should resonate in every human heart. 1 James M. Washington, ed., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1986) 657-58. 2 Vincent Harding, Martin Luther King: The Inconvenient Hero (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1996) 68. 3 Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968). — Introduction by Carol Bragg 2 The World House by Martin Luther King, Jr. Some years ago a famous novelist died. Among his papers was found a list of suggested plots for future stories, the most prominently underscored being this one: “A widely separated family inherits a house in which they have to live together.” This is the great new problem of mankind. We have inherited a large house, a great “world house” in which we have to live together—black and white, Easterner and Westerner, Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Moslem and Hindu—a family unduly separated in ideas, culture and interest, who, because we can never again live apart, must learn somehow to live with each other in peace. However deeply American Negroes are caught in the struggle to be at last at home in our homeland of the United States, we cannot ignore the larger world house in which we are also dwellers. Equality with whites will not solve the problems of either whites or Negroes if it means equality in a world society stricken by poverty and in a universe doomed to extinction by war. All inhabitants of the globe are now neighbors. This world-wide neighborhood has been brought into being as a result of the modern scientific and technological revolutions. The world of today is vastly different from the world of just one hundred years ago. A century ago Thomas Edison had not yet invented the incandescent lamp to bring light to many dark places of the earth. The Wright brothers had not yet invented that fascinating mechanical bird that would spread its gigantic wings across the skies and soon dwarf distance and place time in the service of man. Einstein had not yet challenged an axiom and the theory of relativity had not yet been posited. Human beings, searching a century ago as now for better understanding, had no television, no radios, no telephones and no motion pictures through which to communicate. Medical science had not yet discovered the wonder drugs to end many dread plagues and diseases. One hundred years ago military men had not yet developed the terrifying weapons of warfare that we know today—not the bomber, an airborne fortress raining down death; nor napalm, that burner of all things and flesh in its path. A century ago there were no sky-scraping buildings to kiss the stars and no gargantuan bridges to span the waters. Science had not yet peered into the unfathomable ranges of interstellar space, nor had it penetrated oceanic depths. All these new inventions, these new ideas, these sometimes fascinating and sometimes frightening developments, came later. Most of them have come within the past sixty years, sometimes with agonizing slowness, more characteristically with bewildering speed, but always with enormous significance for our future. The years ahead will see a continuation of the same dramatic developments. Physical science will carve new highways through the stratosphere. In a few years astronauts and cosmonauts will probably walk comfortably across the uncertain pathways of the moon. In two or three years it will be possible, because of the new supersonic jets, to fly from New York to London in two and one-half hours. In the years ahead medical science will greatly prolong the lives of men by finding a cure for cancer and deadly heart ailments. Automation and cybernation will make it possible for working people to have undreamed-of amounts of leisure time. All this 3 is a dazzling picture of the furniture, the workshop, the spacious rooms, the new decorations and the architectural pattern of the large world house in which we are living. Along with the scientific and technological revolution, we have also witnessed a world-wide freedom revolution over the last few decades. The present upsurge of the Negro people of the United States grows out of a deep and passionate determination to make freedom and equality a reality “here” and “now.” In one sense the civil rights movement in the United States is a special American phenomenon which must be understood in the light of American history and dealt with in terms of the American situation. But on another and more important level, what is happening in the United States today is a significant part of a world development. We live in a day, said the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, “when civilization is shifting its basic outlook; a major turning point in history where the pre-suppositions on which society is structured are being analyzed, sharply challenged, and profoundly changed.” What we are seeing now is a freedom explosion, the realization of “an idea whose time has come,” to use Victor Hugo’s phrase. The deep rumbling of discontent that we hear today is the thunder of disinherited masses, rising from dungeons of oppression to the bright hills of freedom. In one majestic chorus the rising masses are singing, in the words of our freedom song, “Ain’t gonna let nobody turn us around.” All over the world like a fever, freedom is spreading in the widest liberation movement in history. The great masses of people are determined to end the exploitation of their races and lands. They are awake and moving toward their goal like a tidal wave. You can hear them rumbling in every village street, on the docks, in the houses, among the students, in the churches and at political meetings. For several centuries the direction of history flowed from the nations and societies of Western Europe out into the rest of the world in “conquests” of various sorts. That period, the era of colonialism, is at an end. East is moving West. The earth is being redistributed. Yes, we are “shifting our basic outlooks.” These developments should not surprise any student of history. Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself. The Bible tells the thrilling story of how Moses stood in Pharaoh’s court centuries ago and cried, “Let my people go.” This was an opening chapter in a continuing story. The present struggle in the United States is a later chapter in the same story. Something within has reminded the Negro of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the spirit of the times, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers in Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. Nothing could be more tragic than for men to live in these revolutionary times and fail to achieve the new attitudes and the new mental outlooks that the new situation demands. In Washington Irving’s familiar story of Rip Van Winkle, the one thing that we usually remember is that Rip slept twenty years. There is another important point, however, that is almost always overlooked. It was the sign on the inn in the little town on the Hudson from which Rip departed and scaled the mountain for his long sleep. When he went up, the sign had a picture of King George III of England. When he came down, twenty years later, the sign had a picture of George Washington. As he looked at the picture of the first President of the United States, Rip was confused, flustered and lost. He knew not who Washington was. The most striking thing about 4 this story is not that Rip slept twenty years, but that he slept through a revolution that would alter the course of human history. One of the great liabilities of history is that all too many people fail to remain awake through great periods of social change. Every society has its protectors of the status quo and its fraternities of the indifferent who are notorious for sleeping through revolutions. But today our very survival depends on our ability to stay awake, to adjust to new ideas, to remain vigilant and to face the challenge of change. The large house in which we live demands that we transform this world-wide neighborhood into a world-wide brotherhood. Together we must learn to live as brothers or together we will be forced to perish as fools. We must work passionately and indefatigably to bridge the gulf between our scientific progress and our moral progress. One of the great problems of mankind is that we suffer from a poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance. The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually. Every man lives in two realms, the internal and the external. The internal is that realm of spiritual ends expressed in art, literature, morals and religion. The external is that complex of devices, techniques, mechanisms and instrumentalities by means of which we live. Our problem today is that we have allowed the internal to become lost in the external. We have allowed the means by which we live to outdistance the ends for which we live. So much of modern life can be summarized in that suggestive phrase of Thoreau: “Improved means to an unimproved end.” This is the serious predicament, the deep and haunting problem, confronting modern man. Enlarged material powers spell enlarged peril if there is not proportionate growth of the soul. When the external of man’s nature subjugates the internal, dark storm clouds begin to form. Western civilization is particularly vulnerable at this moment, for our material abundance has brought us neither peace of mind nor serenity of spirit. An Asian writer has portrayed our dilemma in candid terms: You call your thousand material devices “labor-saving machinery,” yet you are forever “busy.” With the multiplying of your machinery you grow increasingly fatigued, anxious, nervous, dissatisfied. Whatever you have, you want more; and wherever you are you want to go somewhere else…your devices are neither time-saving nor soul-saving machinery. They are so many sharp spurs which urge you on to invent more machinery and to do more business.1 This tells us something about our civilization that cannot be cast aside as a prejudiced charge by an Eastern thinker who is jealous of Western prosperity. We cannot escape the indictment. This does not mean that we must turn back the clock of scientific progress. No one can overlook the wonders that science has wrought for our lives. The automobile will not abdicate in favor of the horse and buggy, or the train in favor of the stagecoach, or the tractor in favor of the hand plow, or the scientific method in favor of ignorance and superstition. But our moral and spiritual “lag” must be redeemed. When scientific power outruns moral power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men. When we foolishly minimize the internal of our lives and maximize the external, we sign the warrant for our own day of doom. 5 Our hope for creative living in this world house that we have inherited lies in our ability to re-establish the moral ends of our lives in personal character and social justice. Without this spiritual and moral reawakening we shall destroy ourselves in the misuse of our own instruments. II Among the moral imperatives of our time, we are challenged to work all over the world with unshakable determination to wipe out the last vestiges of racism. As early as 1906 W.E.B. DuBois prophesied that “the problem of the twentieth century will be the problem of the color line.” Now as we stand two-thirds into this exciting period of history we know full well that racism is still that hound of hell which dogs the tracks of our civilization. Racism is no mere American phenomenon. Its vicious grasp knows no geographical boundaries. In fact, racism and its perennial ally—economic exploitation—provide the key to understanding most of the international complications of this generation. The classic example of organized and institutionalized racism is the Union of South Africa. Its national policy and practice are the incarnation of the doctrine of white supremacy in the midst of a population which is overwhelmingly black. But the tragedy of South Africa is not simply in its own policy; it is the fact that the racist government of South Africa is virtually made possible by the economic policies of the United States and Great Britain, two countries which profess to be the moral bastions of our Western world. In country after country we see white men building empires on the sweat and suffering of colored people. Portugal continues its practices of slave labor and subjugation in Angola; the Ian Smith government in Rhodesia continues to enjoy the support of British-based industry and private capital, despite the stated opposition of British Government policy. Even in the case of the little country of South West Africa we find the powerful nations of the world incapable of taking a moral position against South Africa, though the smaller country is under the trusteeship of the United Nations. Its policies are controlled by South Africa and its manpower is lured into the mines under slave-labor conditions. During the Kennedy administration there was some awareness of the problems that breed in the racist and exploitative conditions throughout the colored world, and a temporary concern emerged to free the United States from its complicity, though the effort was only on a diplomatic level. Through our Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai Stevenson, there emerged the beginnings of an intelligent approach to the colored peoples of the world. However, there remained little or no attempt to deal with the economic aspects of racist exploitation. We have been notoriously silent about the more than $700 million of American capital which props up the system of apartheid, not to mention the billions of dollars in trade and the military alliances which are maintained under the pretext of fighting Communism in Africa. Nothing provides the Communists with a better climate for expansion and infiltration than the continued alliance of our nation with racism and exploitation throughout the world. And if we are not diligent in our determination to root out the last vestiges of racism in our dealings with the rest of the world, we may soon see the sins of our fathers visited upon ours and succeeding generations. For the conditions which are so classically represented in Africa are present also in Asia and in our own back yard in Latin America. 6 Everywhere in Latin America one finds a tremendous resentment of the United States, and that resentment is always strongest among the poorer and darker peoples of the continent. The life and destiny of Latin America are in the hands of United States corporations. The decisions affecting the lives of South Americans are ostensibly made by their governments, but there are almost no legitimate democracies alive in the whole continent. The other governments are dominated by huge and exploitative cartels that rob Latin America of her resources while turning over a small rebate to a few members of a corrupt aristocracy, which in turn invests not in its own country for its own people’s welfare but in the banks of Switzerland and the playgrounds of the world. Here we see racism in its more sophisticated form: neo-colonialism. The Bible and the annals of history are replete with tragic stories of one brother robbing another of his birthright and thereby insuring generations of strife and enmity. We can hardly escape such a judgment in Latin America, any more than we have been able to escape the harvest of hate sown in Vietnam by a century of French exploitation. There is the convenient temptation to attribute the current turmoil and bitterness throughout the world to the presence of a Communist conspiracy to undermine Europe and America, but the potential explosiveness of our world situation is much more attributable to disillusionment with the promises of Christianity and technology. The revolutionary leaders of Africa, Asia and Latin America have virtually all received their education in the capitals of the West. Their earliest training often occurred in Christian missionary schools. Here their sense of dignity was established and they learned that all men were sons of God. In recent years their countries have been invaded by automobiles, Coca-Cola and Hollywood, so that even remote villages have become aware of the wonders and blessings available to God’s white children. Once the aspirations and appetites of the world have been whetted by the marvels of Western technology and the self-image of a people awakened by religion, one cannot hope to keep people locked out of the earthly kingdom of wealth, health and happiness. Either they share in the blessings of the world or they organize to break down and overthrow those structures or governments which stand in the way of their goals. Former generations could not conceive of such luxury, but their children now take this vision and demand that it become a reality. And when they look around and see that the only people who do not share in the abundance of Western technology are colored people, it is an almost inescapable conclusion that their condition and their exploitation are somehow related to their color and the racism of the white Western world. This is a treacherous foundation for a world house. Racism can well be that corrosive evil that will bring down the curtain on Western civilization. Arnold Toynbee has said that some twenty-six civilizations have risen upon the face of the earth. Almost all of them have descended into the junk heaps of destruction. The decline and fall of these civilizations, according to Toynbee, was not caused by external invasions but by internal decay. They failed to respond creatively to the challenges impinging upon them. If Western civilization does not now respond constructively to the challenge to banish racism, some future historian will have to say that a great civilization died because it lacked the soul and commitment to make justice a reality for all men. 7 Another grave problem that must be solved if we are to live creatively in our world house is that of poverty on an international scale. Like a monstrous octopus, it stretches its choking, prehensile tentacles into lands and villages all over the world. Two-thirds of the peoples of the world go to bed hungry at night. They are undernourished, ill-housed and shabbily clad. Many of them have no houses or beds to sleep in. Their only beds are the sidewalks of the cities and the dusty roads of the villages. Most of these poverty-stricken children of God have never seen a physician or a dentist. There is nothing new about poverty. What is new, however, is that we now have the resources to get rid of it. Not too many years ago, Dr. Kirtley Mather, a Harvard geologist, wrote a book entitled Enough and to Spare.2 He set forth the basic theme that famine is wholly unnecessary in the modern world. Today, therefore, the question on the agenda must read: Why should there be hunger and privation in any land, in any city, at any table, when man has the resources and the scientific know-how to provide all mankind with the basic necessities of life? Even deserts can be irrigated and topsoil can be replaced. We cannot complain of a lack of land, for there are 25 million square miles of tillable land on earth, of which we are using less than seven million. We have amazing knowledge of vitamins, nutrition, the chemistry of food and the versatility of atoms. There is no deficit in human resources; the deficit is in human will. This does not mean that we can overlook the enormous acceleration in the rate of growth of the world’s population. The population explosion is very real, and it must be faced squarely if we are to avoid, in centuries ahead, a “standing room only” situation on these earthly shores. Most of the large undeveloped nations in the world today are confronted with the problem of excess population in relation to resources. But even this problem will be greatly diminished by wiping out poverty. When people see more opportunities for better education and greater economic security, they begin to consider whether a smaller family might not be better for themselves and for their children. In other words, I doubt that there can be a stabilization of the population without a prior stabilization of economic resources. The time has come for an all-out world war against poverty. The rich nations must use their vast resources of wealth to develop the underdeveloped, school the unschooled and feed the unfed. The well-off and the secure have too often become indifferent and oblivious to the poverty and deprivation in their midst. The poor in our countries have been shut out of our minds, and driven from the mainstream of our societies, because we have allowed them to become invisible. Ultimately a great nation is a compassionate nation. No individual or nation can be great if it does not have a concern for “the least of these.” The first step in the world-wide war against poverty is passionate commitment. All the wealthy nations—America, Britain, Russia, Canada, Australia, and those of Western Europe— must see it as a moral obligation to provide capital and technical assistance to the underdeveloped areas. These rich nations have only scratched the surface in their commitment. There is need now for a general strategy of support. Sketchy aid here and there will not suffice, nor will it sustain economic growth. There must be a sustained effort extending through many years. The wealthy nations of the world must promptly initiate a massive, sustained Marshall Plan for Asia, Africa and South America. If they would allocate just 2 percent of their gross national product annually for a period of ten or twenty years for the development of the 8 underdeveloped nations, mankind would go a long way toward conquering the ancient enemy, poverty. The aid program that I am suggesting must not be used by the wealthy nations as a surreptitious means to control the poor nations. Such an approach would lead to a new form of paternalism and a neo-colonialism which no self-respecting nation could accept. Ultimately, foreign aid programs must be motivated by a compassionate and committed effort to wipe poverty, ignorance and disease from the face of the earth. Money devoid of genuine empathy is like salt devoid of savor, good for nothing except to be trodden under foot of men. The West must enter into the program with humility and penitence and a sober realization that everything will not always “go our way.” It cannot be forgotten that the Western powers were but yesterday the colonial masters. The house of the West is far from in order, and its hands are far from clean. We must have patience. We must be willing to understand why many of the young nations will have to pass through the same extremism, revolution and aggression that formed our own history. Every new government confronts overwhelming problems. During the days when they were struggling to remove the yoke of colonialism, there was a kind of pre-existent unity of purpose that kept things moving in one solid direction. But as soon as independence emerges, all the grim problems of life confront them with stark realism: the lack of capital, the strangulating poverty, the uncontrollable birth rates and, above all, the high aspirational level of their own people. The post-colonial period is more difficult and precarious than the colonial struggle itself. The West must also understand that its economic growth took place under rather propitious circumstances. Most of the Western nations were relatively under-populated when they surged forward economically, and they were greatly endowed with the iron ore and coal that were needed for launching industry. Most of the young governments of the world today have come into being without these advantages, and, above all, they confront staggering problems of overpopulation. There is no possible way for them to make it without aid and assistance. A genuine program on the part of the wealthy nations to make prosperity a reality for the poor nations will in the final analysis enlarge the prosperity of all. One of the best proofs that reality hinges on moral foundations is the fact that when men and governments work devotedly for the good of others, they achieve their own enrichment in the process. From time immemorial men have lived by the principle that “self-preservation is the first law of life.” But this is a false assumption. I would say that other-preservation is the first law of life. It is the first law of life precisely because we cannot preserve self without being concerned about preserving other selves. The universe is so structured that things go awry if men are not diligent in their cultivation of the other-regarding dimension. “I” cannot reach fulfillment without “thou.” The self cannot be self without other selves. Self-concern without other-concern is like a tributary that has no outward flow to the ocean. Stagnant, still and stale, it lacks both life and freshness. Nothing would be more disastrous and out of harmony with our self-interest than for the developed nations to travel a dead-end road of inordinate selfishness. We are in the fortunate position of having our deepest sense of morality coalesce with our self-interest. But the real reason that we must use our resources to outlaw poverty goes beyond material concerns to the quality of our mind and spirit. Deeply woven into the fiber of our religious tradition is the conviction that men are made in the image of God, and that they are souls of 9 infinite metaphysical value. If we accept this as a profound moral fact, we cannot be content to see men hungry, to see men victimized with ill-health, when we have the means to help them. In the final analysis, the rich must not ignore the poor because both rich and poor are tied together. They entered the same mysterious gateway of human birth, into the same adventure of mortal life. All men are interdependent. Every nation is an heir of a vast treasury of ideas and labor to which both the living and the dead of all nations have contributed. Whether we realize it or not, each of us lives eternally “in the red.” We are everlasting debtors to known and unknown men and women. When we rise in the morning, we go into the bathroom where we reach for a sponge which is provided for us by a Pacific islander. We reach for soap that is created for us by a European. Then at the table we drink coffee which is provided for us by a South American, or tea by a Chinese or cocoa by a West African. Before we leave for our jobs we are already beholden to more than half of the world. In a real sense, all life is interrelated. The agony of the poor impoverishes the rich; the betterment of the poor enriches the rich. We are inevitably our brother’s keeper because we are our brother’s brother. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. A final problem that mankind must solve in order to survive in the world house that we have inherited is finding an alternative to war and human destruction. Recent events have vividly reminded us that nations are not reducing but rather increasing their arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The best brains in the highly developed nations of the world are devoted to military technology. The proliferation of nuclear weapons has not been halted, in spite of the limitedtest-ban treaty. In this day of man’s highest technical achievement, in this day of dazzling discovery, of novel opportunities, loftier dignities and fuller freedoms for all, there is no excuse for the kind of blind craving for power and resources that provoked the wars of previous generations. There is no need to fight for food and land. Science has provided us with adequate means of survival and transportation, which make it possible to enjoy the fullness of this great earth. The question now is, do we have the morality and courage required to live together as brothers and not be afraid? One of the most persistent ambiguities we face is that everybody talks about peace as a goal, but among the wielders of power peace is practically nobody’s business. Many men cry “Peace! Peace!” but they refuse to do the things that make for peace. The large power blocs talk passionately of pursuing peace while expanding defense budgets that already bulge, enlarging already awesome armies and devising ever more devastating weapons. Call the roll of those who sing the glad tidings of peace and one’s ears will be surprised by the responding sounds. The heads of all the nations issue clarion calls for peace, yet they come to the peace table accompanied by bands of brigands each bearing unsheathed swords. The stages of history are replete with the chants and choruses of the conquerors of old who came killing in pursuit of peace. Alexander, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne and Napoleon were akin in seeking a peaceful world order, a world fashioned after their selfish conceptions of an ideal existence. Each sought a world at peace which would personify his egotistic dreams. Even within the life span of most of us, another megalomaniac strode across the world stage. He sent his blitzkrieg-bent legions blazing across Europe, bringing havoc and 10 holocaust in his wake. There is grave irony in the fact that Hitler could come forth, following nakedly aggressive expansionist theories, and do it all in the name of peace. So when in this day I see the leaders of nations again talking peace while preparing for war, I take fearful pause. When I see our country today intervening in what is basically a civil war, mutilating hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese children with napalm, burning villages and rice fields at random, painting the valleys of that small Asian country red with human blood, leaving broken bodies in countless ditches and sending home half-men, mutilated mentally and physically; when I see the unwillingness of our government to create the atmosphere for a negotiated settlement of this awful conflict by halting bombings in the North and agreeing unequivocally to talk with the Vietcong—and all this in the name of pursuing the goal of peace—I tremble for our world. I do so not only from dire recall of the nightmares wreaked in the wars of yesterday, but also from dreadful realization of today’s possible nuclear destructiveness and tomorrow’s even more calamitous prospects. Before it is too late, we must narrow the gaping chasm between our proclamations of peace and our lowly deeds which precipitate and perpetuate war. We are called upon to look up from the quagmire of military programs and defense commitments and read the warnings on history’s signposts. One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek but a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. How much longer must we play at deadly war games before we heed the plaintive pleas of the unnumbered dead and maimed of past wars? President John F. Kennedy said on one occasion, “Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.” Wisdom born of experience should tell us that war is obsolete. There may have been a time when war served as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an evil force, but the destructive power of modern weapons eliminates even the possibility that war may serve any good at all. If we assume that life is worth living and that man has a right to survive, then we must find an alternative to war. In a day when vehicles hurtle through outer space and guided ballistic missiles carve highways of death through the stratosphere, no nation can claim victory in war. A so-called limited war will leave little more than a calamitous legacy of human suffering, political turmoil and spiritual disillusionment. A world war will leave only smoldering ashes as mute testimony of a human race whose folly led inexorably to ultimate death. If modern man continues to flirt unhesitatingly with war, he will transform his earthly habitat into an inferno such as even the mind of Dante could not imagine. Therefore I suggest that the philosophy and strategy of nonviolence become immediately a subject for study and for serious experimentation in every field of human conflict, by no means excluding the relations between nations. It is, after all, nation-states which make war, which have produced the weapons that threaten the survival of mankind and which are both genocidal and suicidal in character. We have ancient habits to deal with, vast structures of power, indescribably complicated problems to solve. But unless we abdicate our humanity altogether and succumb to fear and impotence in the presence of the weapons we have ourselves created, it is as possible and as urgent to put an end to war and violence between nations as it is to put an end to poverty and racial injustice. 11 The United Nations is a gesture in the direction of nonviolence on a world scale. There, at least, states that oppose one another have sought to do so with words instead of with weapons. But true nonviolence is more than the absence of violence. It is the persistent and determined application of peaceable power to offenses against the community—in this case the world community. As the United Nations moves ahead with the giant tasks confronting it, I would hope that it would earnestly examine the uses of nonviolent direct action. I do not minimize the complexity of the problems that need to be faced in achieving disarmament and peace. But I am convinced that we shall not have the will, the courage and the insight to deal with such matters unless in this field we are prepared to undergo a mental and spiritual re-evaluation, a change of focus which will enable us to see that the things that seem most real and powerful are indeed now unreal and have come under sentence of death. We need to make a supreme effort to generate the readiness, indeed the eagerness, to enter into the new world which is now possible, “the city which hath foundation, whose Building and Maker is God.” It is not enough to say, “We must not wage war.” It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the eradication of war but on the affirmation of peace. A fascinating story about Ulysses and the Sirens is preserved for us in Greek literature. The Sirens had the ability to sing so sweetly that sailors could not resist steering toward their island. Many ships were lured upon the rocks, and men forgot home, duty and honor as they flung themselves into the sea to be embraced by arms that drew them down to death. Ulysses, determined not to succumb to the Sirens, first decided to tie himself tightly to the mast of his boat and his crew stuffed their ears with wax. But finally he and his crew learned a better way to save themselves: They took on board the beautiful singer Orpheus, whose melodies were sweeter than the music of the Sirens. When Orpheus sang, who would bother to listen to the Sirens? So we must see that peace represents a sweeter music, a cosmic melody that is far superior to the discords of war. Somehow we must transform the dynamics of the world power struggle from the nuclear arms race, which no one can win, to a creative contest to harness man’s genius for the purpose of making peace and prosperity a reality for all the nations of the world. In short, we must shift the arms race into a “peace race.” If we have the will and determination to mount such a peace offensive, we will unlock hitherto tightly sealed doors of hope and bring new light into the dark chambers of pessimism. III The stability of the large world house which is ours will involve a revolution of values to accompany the scientific and freedom revolutions engulfing the earth. We must rapidly begin the shift from a “thing”-oriented society to a “person”-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered. A civilization can flounder as readily in the face of moral and spiritual bankruptcy as it can through financial bankruptcy. This revolution of values must go beyond traditional capitalism and Communism. We must honestly admit that capitalism has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encouraged small-hearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that, 12 like Dives before Lazarus, they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity. The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system, encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that inspire men to be more I-centered than thou-centered. Equally, Communism reduces men to a cog in the wheel of the state. The Communist may object, saying that in Marxian theory the state is an “interim reality” that will “wither away” when the classless society emerges. True—in theory; but it is also true that, while the state lasts, it is an end in itself. Man is a means to that end. He has no inalienable rights. His only rights are derived from, and conferred by, the state. Under such a system the fountain of freedom runs dry. Restricted are man’s liberties of press and assembly, his freedom to vote and his freedom to listen and to read. Truth is found neither in traditional capitalism nor in classical Communism. Each represents a partial truth. Capitalism fails to see the truth in collectivism. Communism fails to see the truth in individualism. Capitalism fails to realize that life is social. Communism fails to realize that life is personal. The good and just society is neither the thesis of capitalism nor the antithesis of Communism, but a socially conscious democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and collectivism. We have seen some moves in this direction. The Soviet Union has gradually moved away from its rigid Communism and begun to concern itself with consumer products, art and a general increase in benefits to the individual citizen. At the same time, through constant social reforms, we have seen many modifications in laissez-faire capitalism. The problems we now face must take us beyond slogans for their solution. In the final analysis, the right-wing slogans on “government control” and “creeping socialism” are as meaningless and adolescent as the Chinese Red Guard slogans against “bourgeois revisionism.” An intelligent approach to the problems of poverty and racism will cause us to see that the words of the Psalmist—“The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof—“ are still a judgment upon our use and abuse of the wealth and resources with which we have been endowed. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. We are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be beaten and robbed as they make their journey through life. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it understands that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look at thousands of working people displaced from their jobs with reduced incomes as a result of automation while the profits of the employers remain intact, and say: “This is not just.” It will look across the oceans and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say: “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and 13 bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing to prevent us from paying adequate wages to schoolteachers, social workers and other servants of the public to insure that we have the best available personnel in these positions which are charged with the responsibility of guiding our future generations. There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an adequate wage to every American citizen whether he be a hospital worker, laundry worker, maid or day laborer. There is nothing except shortsightedness to prevent us from guaranteeing an annual minimum—and livable—income for every American family. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from remolding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood. This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against Communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and who through their misguided passions urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. We must not call everyone a Communist or an appeaser who advocates the seating of Red China in the United Nations, or who recognizes that hate and hysteria are not the final answers to the problems of these turbulent days. We must not engage in a negative anti-Communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against Communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with affirmative action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity and injustice which are the fertile soil in which the seed of Communism grows and develops. These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the earth are rising up as never before. “The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light.” We in the West must support these revolutions. It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of Communism and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Communism is a judgment on our failure to make democracy real and to follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal opposition to poverty, racism and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when “every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain.” A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. This call for a world-wide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This 14 often misunderstood and misinterpreted concept has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love, I am speaking of that force which all the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Moslem-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the First Epistle of Saint John: Let us love one another: for love is of God: and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love….If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the God of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals who pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee once said in a speech: “Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word.” We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The “tide in the affairs of men” does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: “Too late.” There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. “The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on….” We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. This may well be mankind’s last chance to choose between chaos and community. 1 Abraham Mitrie Rihbany, Wise Men from the East and from the West (Houghton Mifflin, 1922) 137. 2 Harper, 1944. COPYRIGHT © 1967 THE HEIRS TO THE ESTATE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING. THIS MATERIAL MAY BE REPRODUCED FOR NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. 15 Reader Note: The text below is an excerpt taken from The Philosophy of Food, ed. David M. Kaplan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012). “Introduction”: The Philosophy of Food, David Kaplan Food Ethics Food is about life as well as luxury. It is about serious things like hunger and malnutrition, diabetes and heart disease, eating and being eaten. It is a profoundly moral issue. It always has been. Even ordinary, everyday acts of cooking and eating are forms of ethical conduct. Cultural and religious traditions since antiquity have prescribed what we should and should not eat. In fact, ethical choices about food used to be considered as important as other more recognizably moral issues. Today people in the industrialized North tend to be less concerned about the relationship between diet and moral-religious conduct than we are about more mundane matters of health and, to a lesser extent, animals and the environment. Most of us are familiar with the standard ethical questions concerning food. They are becoming increasingly commonplace. What should we eat? Is it wrong to eat meat? What should we do about world hunger? Do my food choices even make a difference? Although debatable and unsettled, these issues are at least on the radar. Ethical issues about food and eating are dizzying in scope and difficult to catalog much less resolve. Nevertheless, there are several broad sets of concerns. Responsibilities to self and others. Part of the landscape of ethical theory is the discourse of obligation and responsibility, also known as duty. On this model, there are some things people have to do simply because they are the right thing to do. As Kant famously argues, an action must be performed out of duty to have any moral worth. Actions motivated by selfinterest, or love, or anticipated consequence are, of course, permissible but not moral in this narrow sense. Kant distinguishes between “perfect” (strong) and “imperfect” (weak) duties. Perfect duties are those that are always required of us; imperfect duties are those that are contingent and only sometimes required of us. He further divides duties between those we have to others and those one has for oneself. For example, the perfect duty to myself is to refrain from suicide; the imperfect duty is to develop my talents. The perfect duty to others is to refrain from acts of violence and coercion; the imperfect duty is to help others. Obviously, there is more to say about responsibility than Kant’s schema of duties but it is a helpful place to start in considering how food figures into the moral landscape. What are our duties to others concerning food? Minimally, we should neither eat people nor deprive them of food. We probably have an obligation to prevent starvation and to feed the hungry, although it is not clear who “we” are. Doctors have obligations to feed patients in hospitals, sometimes intravenously or forcibly for those who cannot eat. Food manufacturers, farmers, restauranteurs, and other sellers have a moral (not just legal) responsibility to provide safe food. Our imperfect food duties to others are to alleviate suffering and to be hospitable, although the latter is probably a virtue not a duty. What are one’s duties to oneself? Minimally, neither to starve nor to endanger oneself by food deprivation (although a hunger strike is a morally justifiable form of protest). If eating is a necessary condition to realize our autonomy and human dignity then each has the duty to eat a healthy and nourishing diet. A person who dines on only cheese doodles and vodka, for example, fails to respect himself – he has “let himself go.” The imperfect food duty to oneself is to eat in a way that helps to realize one’s potential. We should eat not only to survive but to flourish and enhance ourselves. Perhaps an athlete has a responsibility to eat a specialized diet to improve performance, while the rest of us should strive to improve our well-being through diet, not simply to maintain it. This brief list of food duties is far from determinate but is representative of the kinds of arguments that can be made. Each claim, of course, needs to be justified and further clarified to specify who is responsible, to whom, and under what conditions. The very notion of a food duty raises more questions than it answers: How many people am I responsible for feeding? At what cost to myself? What kind of food do I owe to others? How much of it? It is less important to settle these questions than to note how effectively they can be addressed within the framework of rights, duties, and self-development. This moral language is not only commonplace but exceptionally strong rhetorically. Food virtues. Another part of the landscape of ethical theory is the discourse of moral virtue. Virtue ethics is less concerned with moral rules and principles than character traits and dispositions. The key question to ask is not “what should I do?” but “what kind of person should I become?” The answer is given in terms of virtues a person should aspire to, such as “integrity,” “courage,” “magnanimity,” “wisdom,” and so on. The heart of our ethical life is rooted in character traits, relationships, and communities. Virtue ethics (and care ethics, alike) challenge uninspiring, improperly legalistic moral frameworks. Ethical life is about being a good citizen not following rigid rules. Vegetarianism and animals. Humans have moral obligations to animals. Even proud meat eaters appreciate that there are some things humans should never do to animals, like torture them for fun or eat their neighbor’s pets. Raising animals for food is, of course, more debatable. There are two main philosophical approaches to this issue: deontological (rightsbased) and utilitarian (consequence-based). Deontological approaches affirm the rights of animals, hence the obligations of humans to respect those rights. Animals, like humans, have inherent value and interest in self-preservation and thus enjoy the same fundamental right as we do not to be treated as mere thing. That implies the obligation not to eat animals or disregard their interests. Other rights theorists maintain that the legal ownership of animals is unjust and, therefore, any use of animals is unjust regardless of how humanely they are treated. This abolitionist theory of animal rights affirms veganism, not just a vegetarian diet. Other rights theorists contend that only humans have rights because only humans have obligations. Animals cannot tell the difference between their interests and what is the right thing to do. Without that distinction it makes no sense to say that an action is performed on the basis of duty; there has to be a choice between acting out of obligation and acting from desire. Those who argue against animal rights do not necessarily endorse eating meat; they merely challenge a rights-based justification for vegetarianism. Utilitarian (or consequentialist) approaches argue that animals (like humans) have no fundamental rights. Rather, they have the capacity to experience pleasure and to suffer and are thus no less morally significant than we are. Utilitarian approaches require that we give equal consideration to the interests of humans and animals alike. Equality of consideration is prescriptive, not descriptive. It is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact. The strength of the animal welfarist appeal is, however, the obvious fact of animal suffering and animal cruelty. Most arguments for ethical vegetarianism and veganism are based on animal welfare and the need to give animals moral consideration. Another set of arguments focus on different consequences, such as the vast amounts of fuel and water used in ranching, the greenhouse gases produced, wasted food on feeding animals rather than people, and increased risk of heart disease from eating meat. These are among the many good reasons for not eating meat. Consequentialist arguments can, of course, be marshaled in defense of meat eating. Some typical arguments include that the suffering of animals is offset by the economic benefits to people whose prosperity would be destroyed were we all to stop eating meat; the special dietary needs of pregnant and breast-feeding women require more protein than a vegetarian diet can supply (and that poor people cannot afford or do not have access to dietary supplements); or that long-standing customs and rituals trump animal suffering. Arguments from the moral virtues are less common but make a similar appeal to animal suffering and to the character traits of those who either condone or oppose it. For example, an uncaring person turns a blind eye to animal cruelty; a compassionate person does not. The traditional virtues oppose things like the consumerism and insensitivity to animals that drives factory farming. Kant makes a similar claim when he argues that it reflects a poor character to treat animals poorly. We diminish ourselves in our acts of cruelty and become more likely to harm other humans. In other words, we should treat animals well less for their sake than for ours. Virtue ethics can also be marshaled in defense of meat eating. This class of arguments typically finds support in the rich heritage of cultural or religious traditions that involve eating animals: ceremonial feasts, symbolic meanings, the virtues of respect and appreciation for nature’s bounty, culinary virtues, perhaps even the virtues of preparing and eating an animal stalked and hunted. Agricultural and environmental ethics: Agricultural ethics deals with issues related to the farming of food, ranching and processing livestock, and the cultivation of crops for food, fiber, and fuel. Industrial agriculture, (farming based on the use of machinery, chemicals, and monocrops) although highly productive, raises moral questions about appropriate use of the land, pollution, and animals. The ethical concerns are typically consequentialist. Industrial agriculture produces a litany of harms, such as topsoil erosion, loss of biodiversity, water contamination, and health risks to farmworkers and consumers. Sometimes the moral appeal is made in the name of future generations, who would be adversely affected by actions in the present. By contrast, sustainable agriculture and ranching is designed to avoid these problems while at the same time satisfying the world’s food needs. Sustainable production practices should enhance environmental quality, use resources more effectively, integrate natural biological cycles and controls, and improve the quality of life for farmers, ranchers, and societies as a whole. Sustainable practices are putatively more practically and morally defensible than industrialized farming and ranching. Advocates of industrial agriculture contend that sustainable practices cannot meet the world's food needs and are, therefore, practically and morally indefensible. Another approach to questions concerning agriculture and the environment is to call into question the anthropocentric (human-centered) bias of philosophical perspectives, which have traditionally devalued the moral standing of the natural environment and its members. Since the early 1970s, the literature in environmental ethics has challenged the view that only humans have intrinsic value while nonhuman things have extrinsic value as means to human ends. Some environmental philosophers argue for new, nonanthropocentric theories of natural environments and animals. Aldo Leopold’s “land ethic” represents an attempt to argue that the biosphere as a whole has an integrity and beauty that deserves moral consideration. Nonanthropocentric, holistic (rather than individualist) approaches are best suited to make sense of our moral relations with the land. A related approach to a land ethic is found in the American agrarian tradition. An agrarian philosophy stresses the role of farming and ranching in the formation of moral character and in preserving culture and traditions. By living a rural lifestyle connected to the climate and soil, we acquire a sense of identity and place that can only come about by direct contact with the land. Agrarian philosophy is critical of the social and environmental impacts of industrial agriculture. Wendell Berry, for example, argues that modern agriculture and exodus from farms to cities harms the environment, destroys communities, and eclipses the basic human dignity that comes from an agrarian lifestyle. “Eating,” he famously says, “is an agricultural act” (Berry, 1991). We are all involved in agriculture and our food choices affects how land is treated. Food Technology Everything humans eat has been grown, raised, or processed in some way. Even the most ecologically attuned organic farming and ranching uses technologies to transform plants or animals into food. We use simple technologies for cooking, drying, fermenting, and slicing; complex ones for pasteurizing, freezing, irradiating, and flavoring. Some processing involves food additives and dietary supplements; other forms, genetic modification and nutrient enhancement. Everything we eat undergoes varying amounts of technological processing before reaching our mouths. Raw food (especially organically grown) is the least processed, then whole food (sometimes cooked), then natural food (no artificial ingredients), then conventional food (often with artificial ingredients). Perhaps the very idea of a “natural food” is dubious if all food requires the intervention of humans. Of course, food processing in itself is not such a terrible thing. The benefits are apparent: safety, availability, nutrient fortification, and convenience. But some technologically processed foods pose real risks and raise philosophical questions. The main issues concerning food technology – other than industrial agriculture itself – are genetic modification, animal biotechnology, and functional foods. These matters not only raise concerns about health and environmental consequences but also questions concerning consumer choice, food labeling, and animal rights, as well as the very metaphysical status of what we eat. Genetically modified food. Genetically modified (GM) foods are plants and animals that have been altered using recombinant DNA technology, a technique that combines DNA molecules from different sources into a single molecule. The purpose of genetic modification is to produce new and useful traits otherwise unattainable through conventional techniques. Most often foods are genetically modified to contain their own pesticides or to be herbicide resistant, although a small percentage of crops are engineered to be nutritionally enhanced or drought resistant. Advocates of GM food maintain that they pose neither health nor environmental risks. They promise to increase yields, increase food security, and protect the environment. Critics warn of unknown health risks and environmental damage. Since labeling is not required in the US, there is no way for most consumers to choose to avoid or to purchase GM foods. Critics also worry about the abuse of intellectual property rights laws that permit the privatization and patenting of life forms. For example, it is illegal for farmers to save and store GM seeds without paying royalty fees. Food security is then threatened as seeds become private property. At the very least, the privatization of GM seeds increases food dependence on industrialized nations by developing nations. Animal biotechnology. Animal biotechnology applies recombinant DNA techniques to animals. The largest class of genetically engineered (GE) animals are designed to produce pharmaceuticals (also known as “agriceuticals”); another class is designed for industrial purposes; another for food. Livestock and fish are engineered to be disease resistant, have improved nutritional value, increased growth rates, decreased pollutants in their manure, or to produce antimicrobials that target E. coli and Salmonella. We have already encountered many of the arguments for and against animal biotechnology in the discussion of animal rights and GM food. Advocates cite the benefits of increased resistance to disease, productivity, and hardiness; GE animals yield more meat, eggs, and milk; and they provide more healthy food. Critics contend that genetic manipulation violates an animal’s intrinsic value (or its telos, its natural function) and that mixing the genes of different species tampers with the natural order. Others maintain the more defensible position that we should not engage in practices (using biotechnology or otherwise) that make food animals worse off than they are now. Functional foods. A functional food, or “nutraceutical,” is a food-based product that has added ingredients believed to provide health benefits. Such foods are designed to assist in the prevention or treatment of disease, or to enhance and improve human capacities. They include products like vitamin-fortified grains, energy bars, low-fat or low-sodium foods, and sports drinks. Functional foods eliminate properties from the food to make it more nutritious – even to replace medicine. The key moral issue is these foods' claim to function as medicine, blurring the boundaries between food and drugs. Manufacturers can produce food items that make general health claims (to promote health) so long as they make no specific claims (to treat diseases). There is no legal definition for functional foods in the United States, and neither premarket approval for safety nor proof of general health claims is required. The lack of regulation raises questions about the proper role of governments in regulating food and protecting public health. Food Politics Food choices are inevitably political. Even our simple acts of eating have public consequences when aggregated. The choices consumers make ripple through the realms of food production, distribution, and consumption shaping the character of our food system. But perhaps even more important than individual choices are the political and economic realities that affect national and international food systems. Governments have tremendous power to make decisions over entire nations (and entire species). So do transnational corporations. We have already encountered several issues that have political dimensions, such as food safety, hunger, animal rights, and genetically modified food. (Any issue where there are “advocates” and “critics” is already politically charged). These issues are both economic and political. Some additional food issues that deserve to be mentioned are food security, global trade, marketing, and labeling. Food security. Food security exists when people have access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to live healthy lives. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 1 billion people suffer from hunger; another one billion from undernourishment. There are a number of reasons for chronic and temporary food insecurity. They include poverty, economic crises, poor governance, and poor agricultural infrastructure. People cope with food insecurity by eating less, selling assets, and forgoing health care and education. Women are affected worse than men; girls more than boys. Food insecurity traps people in poverty and poor health and it compromises basic daily activities. It is a matter of social and international justice. In order to prevent food shortages, nations need to invest in agriculture and infrastructure and expand safety nets for short-term, acute situations. They need to create jobs and increase agriculture and local value-added food production. Small farmers need access to resources and technologies that allow them to increase productivity. Nations need vibrant agricultural systems and strong food security governance to increase production, distribute food to those in need, and protect citizens from both natural and economic crises. As if the practical challenges aren’t enough, the philosophical challenge is to justify the claim that governments have the obligation to protect food security. If they have food duties is it because citizens have food rights? Do noncitizens? What do nations owe to each other? What role should markets and financial system play in protecting food security? What about NGOs, and consumer choice? In other words, what should we do about massive, remediable, undeserved suffering regarding food and to improve the lives of as many as possible using means that are just, fair, and culturally appropriate? Global trade. Trade and the globalization of agriculture are increasingly internationalizing the politics of food. Producers and consumers are often vulnerable to events that take place far away and subject to decisions over which they have little control. Transnational agribusiness and global financial institutions exercise tremendous influence over national and international food policies. It is debatable whether the current global trade system helps or harms nations. The transfer of technology for the most part helps, although industrial agriculture often reduces employment and drives farmers into cities and slums. Trade liberalization is good for farmers in industrialized nations but it too often creates poverty in poor countries as subsidized commodities drive crop prices down. Local farmers cannot produce food as cheaply as the imports forcing poor nations to become dependent on wealthier nations for food. Developing countries need to have the ability to raise tariffs on agricultural products to protect national food security and employment. A further consequence of globalization is that traditional, local diets are being replaced by a “Western diet” and lifestyle: energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods with high levels of sugar and saturated fats, combined with reduced physical activity. Not surprisingly, global rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease continue to increase in both rich and poor countries. The local food movement in wealthy nations is, in part, a response to the globalization of food. A “locavore” is someone who aims to eat only food grown or produced within a relatively short radius ofwhere one lives, typically within 100 miles. Local networks of small farms, community-supported agriculture, co-ops, and farmers’ markets are said to enhance relationships among producers and communities while also leaving a smaller carbon footprint. Another response to globalized food production is the slow food movement started in Italy by Carlos Petrini in the late 1980s as a reaction to the spread of fast food. Slow food is premised on the conviction that locally grown food and traditional farming and food production methods protects regional culinary practices and lifestyles. Slow food proponents claim that such food regionalism not only enhances relationships among farmers, communities, and environments but also produces better tasting food. Critics argue that farmers in the developing nations are harmed when consumers in wealthy nations eat locally. Our moral obligation to alleviate suffering abroad (probably) has priority over our obligation to mitigate environmental degradation. In addition, the environmental impact of transportation is often exaggerated. A more thorough environmental assessment also takes into account the amount of energy used in food production. Often the energy use in food transported great distances is less than that produced locally. Some suggest that a better alternative to food-provincialism is to support “fair trade” products. These are food items produced sustainably on farms and ranches that respect worker rights, worker safety, and that pay living wages. To receive a fair trade designation, the entire supply chain must be in compliance – from production to distribution. Labeling and marketing: Consumers need information in order to make decisions about what to purchase and what to eat. We get this information from food labels and advertising. Arguably, we have a right to know about the ingredients and perhaps even the processing and packaging of our food. The risks of false information can be harmful – even lethal. Or, less gravely, false information compromises our ability to make informed choices. How can a person, for example, avoid sodium, support fair trade, or eat kosher foods unless products are labeled? Even if we deny that consumers have the right to information (and producers an obligation to provide it) a market economy is premised on the freedom to make informed choices. The most reasonable way for consumers to be informed is through food labels and advertising. And the only way that information is going to be made available is if producers disclose it. Granted, it is far from clear how much information is enough to inform consumers; what the limits of marketing and advertising are beyond not lying; or what kind of product liability is appropriate for food and drinks. These are legal as much as moral-political questions. Food Identity Food and drink figure into our everyday lives in countless ways. A diet expresses ethnic, religious, and class identification; it prescribes gender roles; it is embodied in rituals and manners; and it relates directly to our aspirations to perfect ourselves. Food and drink tap our pleasures and anxieties, memories and desires, and pride in or alienation from our heritage. This connection between diet and identity raises a number of philosophical questions. Nothing we eat (short of poison) determines an identity. And yet dietary preferences are indeed a part of who I am individually, and who we are collectively. Sometimes the role of food is trivial (e.g., one’s idiosyncratic tastes and food memories), sometimes significant (e.g., sugar and the Atlantic slave trade, or Ireland and the potato in the 1840s). Either way, food is a marker of identity. Gender is a particularly good example. Men and woman act out their identities, roles, and relationships through their very different relationships with food: different division of labor, access, and meaning attributed to eating. By mapping gender onto each stage of food production, distribution, and consumption we have a powerful lens through which to explain gender relations. Do the same with race or class and, again, we get a window into one realm of activities that manifests social relations. We get answers to questions to the “who?” questions: who farms, who trades, who eats, who cooks, who manages waste, who profits, and so on. Why is this philosophically interesting? Because diet nicely manifests two basic philosophical topics: identity and justice. Any thorough analysis of these concepts cannot ignore diet. To put it noncontroversially: any personal or collective identity is formed in a (social and environmental) context. Food and eating are a crucial part of that context. Food does not make an identity, nor does it exhaust questions of justice but it is a key part of each story. People, Not Technology, Are the Key to Ending Hunger http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/27/local/me-15218 The debate over biotechnology is a tragic distraction. June 27, 2001|FRANCES MOORE LAPPE | Frances Moore Lappe is a visiting scholar at MIT Biotechnology companies and even some scientists argue that we need genetically modified seeds to feed the world and to protect the Earth from chemicals. Their arguments feel eerily familiar. Thirty years ago, I wrote "Diet for a Small Planet" for one reason. As a researcher buried in the UC Berkeley agricultural library, I was stunned to learn that the experts--equivalent to the biotech proponents of today--were wrong. They were telling us we'd reached the Earth's limits to feed ourselves, but in fact there was more than enough food for us all. Hunger, I learned, is the result of economic "givens" we ourselves have created, assumptions and structures that actively generate scarcity from plenty. Today this is more, not less, true. Throughout history, ruminants had served humans by turning grasses and other "inedibles" into high-grade protein. They were our four-legged protein factories. But once we began feeding livestock from cropland that could grow edible food, we began to convert ruminants into our protein disposals. Only a small fraction of the nutrients fed to animals return to us in meat; the rest animals use largely for energy or they excrete. Thirty years ago, one-third of the world's grain was going to livestock; today it is closer to one-half. And now we're mastering the same disappearing trick with the world's fish supply. By feeding fish to fish, again, we're reducing the potential supply. We're shrinking the world's food supply for one reason: The hundreds of millions of people who go hungry cannot create a sufficient "market demand" for the fruits of the Earth. So more and more of it flows into the mouths of livestock, which convert it into what the better-off can afford. Corn becomes filet mignon. Sardines become salmon. Enter biotechnology. While its supporters claim that seed biotechnology methods are "safe" and "precise," other scientists strongly refute that, as they do claims that biotech crops have actually reduced pesticide use. But this very debate is in some ways part of the problem. It is a tragic distraction our planet cannot afford. We're still asking the wrong question. Not only is there already enough food in the world, but as long as we are only talking about food--how best to produce it--we'll never end hunger or create the communities and food safety we want. We must ask instead: How do we build communities in tune with nature's wisdom in which no one, anywhere, has to worry about putting food--safe, healthy food--on the table? Asking this question takes us far beyond food. It takes us to the heart of democracy itself, to whose voices are heard in matters of land, seeds, credit, employment, trade and food safety. The problem is, this question cannot be addressed by scientists or by any private entity, including even the most high-minded corporation. Only citizens can answer it, through public debate and the resulting accountable institutions that come from our engagement. Where are the channels for public discussion and where are the accountable polities? Increasingly, public discussion about food and hunger is framed by advertising by multinational corporations that control not only food processing and distribution but farm inputs and seed patents. Two years ago, the seven leading biotech companies, including Monsanto, teamed up under the neutralsounding Council for Biotechnology Information and are spending millions to, for example, blanket us with full-page newspaper ads about biotech's virtues. Government institutions are becoming ever more beholden to these corporations than to their citizens. Nowhere is this more obvious than in decisions regarding biotechnology--whether it's the approval or patenting of biotech seeds and foods without public input or the rejection of mandatory labeling of biotech foods despite broad public demand for it. The absence of genuine democratic dialogue and accountable government is a prime reason most people remain blind to the many breakthroughs in the last 30 years that demonstrate we can grow abundant, healthy food and also protect the Earth. Hunger is not caused by a scarcity of food but by a scarcity of democracy. Thus it can never be solved by new technologies, even if they were to be proved "safe." It can only be solved as citizens build democracies in which government is accountable to them, not private corporate entities. Can We Trust Monsanto with Our Food? The real truth about GMOs By Nina Fedoroff on July 25, 2013 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-we-trust-monsanto-with-our-food/ Credit: Flickr/Chris Goodwin SA Forum is an invited essay from experts on topical issues in science and technology. The World Food Prize laureates for 2013 were announced in June. They are Marc van Montagu, Mary-Dell Chilton and Rob Fraley. These scientists played seminal roles, together with the late Jeff Schell, in developing modern plant molecular modification techniques. Fraley is chief technology officer of Monsanto. Chilton is a Distinguished Science Fellow at Syngenta. Montagu founded Plant Genetic Systems (now part of Bayer CropScience) and CropDesign (today owned by BASF). Scratch the blogosphere and you’ll be dumbfounded by this award. GMOs (genetically modified organisms) produced by big ag-biotech companies are responsible for farmer suicides in India. Monsanto sues farmers who didn’t plant biotech seeds, but had a bit of pollen blown into their fields. U.S. wheat farmers are facing bankruptcy because GM wheat was discovered growing in Oregon. A quick search on YouTube turns up these top hits: "Seeds of death: unveiling the lies of GMOs," "Horrific new studies in GMOs, you're eating this stuff!!" and "They are killing us— GMO foods." Humans began genetically modifying plants to provide food more than 10,000 years ago. For the past hundred years or so plant breeders have used radiation and chemicals to speed up the production of genetic changes. This was a genetic shotgun, producing lots of bad changes and a very, very occasional good one. That’s the best we could do until the three laureates (and their colleagues) developed molecular techniques for plant genetic modification. We can now use these methods to make precise improvements by adding just a gene (or two or a few) that codes for proteins whose function we know with precision. Yet plants modified by these techniques, the best and safest we’ve ever invented, are the only ones we now call GM. Almost everyone believes we’ve never fiddled with plant genes before, as if beefsteak tomatoes, elephant garlic and corn were somehow products of unfettered nature. The anti-GM storm gathered in the mid-80s and swept around the world. Most early alarms about new technologies fade away as research accumulates without turning up evidence of deleterious effects. This should be happening now because scientists have amassed more than three decades of research on GM biosafety, none of which has surfaced credible evidence that modifying plants by molecular techniques is dangerous. Instead, the anti-GM storm has intensified. Scientists have done their best to explain things, but they’re rather staid folk for the most part, constitutionally addicted to facts and figures and not terribly good at crafting emotionally gripping narratives. This puts them at a disadvantage. One scare story based on a bogus study suggesting a bad effect of eating GMOs readily trumps myriad studies that show that GM foods are just like non-GM foods. What are the facts? Monsanto and the other big ag-biotech companies have developed reliable, biologically insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant commodity crops that benefit people, farmers and the environment, and are nutritionally identical to their non-GM counterparts. GM insect-resistant crops contain a gene that codes for a bacterial protein that’s toxic to an insect pest, but not animals or people. Insecticides are toxic chemicals that kill insects indiscriminately, both harmful and beneficial. They’re also poisonous to other animals—people included. Insectresistant crops have reduced insecticide use. Biological solutions for insect pest problems were Rachel Carson’s dream. Insect-resistant GM corn also decreases human and animal exposure to mycotoxins, highly toxic and carcinogenic compounds made by fungi. The fungi that produce mycotoxins follow insects into plants; insect-resistant plants have no insect holes for fungi to enter and therefore no mycotoxins. Monsanto developed GM crops that tolerate a nontoxic herbicide called glyphosate, aka Roundup. Herbicide-tolerant crops have made a major contribution to decreasing topsoil loss by facilitating no-till farming. This farming method reduces CO2 emissions from plowing and improves soil quality. Farmers don't have to buy Monsanto seed, nor is anyone preventing them from saving and replanting any seed they want, except for patented seed they've signed an agreement not to save and plant. Farmers buy seeds from Monsanto and other ag-biotech companies because their costs decrease and their profits increase. If they didn't, farmers wouldn't buy them again. If the popular mythology about farmer suicides, tumors and toxicity had an ounce of truth to it, these companies would long since have gone out of business. Instead, they’re taking more market share every year. There's a mismatch between mythology and reality. Maybe it's worth remembering that technology vilification is about as old as technology itself. What's new is electronic gossip and the proliferation of organizations that peddle such gossip for a living. ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) Nina Fedoroff is distinguished professor of biosciences at the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia and Evan Pugh professor at Penn State University. She has no material interest in Monsanto or its products. 1989 Address by Cesar Chavez, on the Perils of Pesticides to Pacific Lutheran University ADDRESS BY CESAR CHAVEZ, PRESIDENT UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO Pacific Lutheran University March 1989-Tacoma, Washington What is the worth of a man or a woman? What is the worth of a farm worker? How do you measure the value of a life? Ask the parents of Johnnie Rodriguez. Johnnie Rodriguez was not even a man; Johnnie was a five year old boy when he died after a painful two year battle against cancer. His parents, Juan and Elia, are farm workers. Like all grape workers, they are exposed to pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. Elia worked in the table grapes around Delano, California until she was eight months pregnant with Johnnie. Juan and Elia cannot say for certain if pesticides caused their son's cancer. But neuroblastoma is one of the cancers found in McFarland, a small farm town only a few miles from Delano, where the Rodriguezes live. "Pesticides are always in the fields and around the towns," Johnnie's father told us. "The children get the chemicals when they play outside, drink the water or when they hug you after you come home from working in fields that are sprayed. "Once your son has cancer, it's pretty hard to take," Juan Rodriguez says. "You hope it's a mistake, you pray. He was a real nice boy. He took it strong and lived as long as he could." I keep a picture of Johnnie Rodriguez. He is sitting on his bed, hugging his Teddy bears. His sad eyes and cherubic face stare out at you. The photo was taken four days before he died. Johnnie Rodriguez was one of 13 McFarland children diagnosed with cancer in recent years; and one of six who have died from the disease. With only 6,000 residents, the rate of cancer in McFarland is 400 percent above normal. In McFarland and in Fowler childhood cancer cases are being reported in excess of expected rates. In Delano and other farming towns, questions are also being raised. The chief source of carcinogens in these communities are pesticides from the vineyards and fields that encircle them. Health experts believe the high rate of cancer in McFarland is from pesticides and nitrate-containing fertilizers leaching into the water system from surrounding fields. Last year California's Republican Governor, George Deukmejian, killed a modest study to find out why so many children are dying of cancer in McFarland. "Fiscal integrity" was the reason he gave for his veto of the $125,000 program, which could have helped 84 other rural communities with drinking water problems. Last year, as support for our cause grew, Governor Deukmejian used a statewide radio broadcast to attack the grape boycott. There is no evidence to prove that pesticides on grapes and other produce endanger farm workers or consumers, Deukmejian claimed. Ask the family of Felipe Franco. Felipe is a bright seven year old who is learning to read and write. Like other children, Felipe will some day need to be independent. But Felipe is not like other children: he was born without arms and legs. Felipe's mother, Ramona, worked in the grapes near Delano until she was in her eighth month of pregnancy. She was exposed to Captan, known to cause birth defects and one of the pesticides our grape boycott seeks to ban. "Every morning when I began working I could smell and see pesticides on the grape leaves," Ramona said. Like many farm workers, she was assured by growers and their foremen how the pesticides that surrounded her were safe, that they were harmless "medicine" for the plants. Only after Ramona took her son to specialists in Los Angeles was she told that the pesticides she was exposed to in the vineyards caused Felipe's deformity. The deep sadness she feels has subsided, but not the anger. Felipe feels neither anger nor sadness. He is lavished with the care and love he will always need. And he dreams of what only a child can hope for: Felipe wants to grow arms and legs. "He believes he will have his limbs someday," his mother says. "His great dream is to be able to move around, to walk, to take care of himself." Our critics sometimes ask, 'why should the United Farm Workers worry about pesticides when farm workers have so many other more obvious problems?' The wealth and plenty of California agribusiness are built atop the suffering of generations of California farm workers. Farm labor history across America is one shameful tale after another of hardship and exploitation. Malnutrition among migrant children. Tuberculosis, pneumonia and respiratory infections. Average life expectancy more than twenty years below the U.S. norm. Savage living conditions. Miserable wages and working conditions. Sexual harassment of women workers. Widespread child labor. Inferior schools or no school at all. When farm workers organize against these injustices they are met with brutality and coercion-and death. Under Governor Deukmejian's control, California's pioneering 1975 law which guarantees farm workers the right to organize and vote in secret ballot union elections is now just one more tool growers use to oppress our people. Thousands who thought the law protected them were threatened and fired and beaten by the growers; two were murdered-shot to death by gunmen their employers had hired. For 100 years succeeding waves of immigrants have sweated and sacrificed to make this industry rich. And for their sweat and for their sacrifice, farm workers have been repaid with humiliation and contempt. With all these problems, why, then, do we dwell so on the perils of pesticides? Because there is something even more important to farm workers than the benefits unionization brings. Because there is something more important to the farm workers' union than winning better wages and working conditions. That is protecting farm workers-and consumers-from systematic poisoning through the reckless use of agricultural toxics. There is nothing we care more about than the lives and safety of our families. There is nothing we share more deeply in common with the consumers of North America than the safety of the food all of us reply upon. We are proud to be a part of the House of Labor. Collective bargaining is the traditional way American workers have escaped poverty and improved their standard of living. It is the way farm workers will also empower themselves. But the U.F.W. has always had to be something more than a union. Because our people are so poor. Because the color of our skin is dark. Because we often don't speak the language. Because the discrimination, the racism and the social dilemmas we confront transcend mere economic need. What good does it do to achieve the blessings of collective bargaining and make economic progress for people when their health is destroyed in the process? If we ignored pesticide poisoning-if we looked on as farm workers and their children are stricken-then all the other injustices our people face would be compounded by an even more deadly tyranny. But ignore that final injustice is what our opponents would have us do. 'Don't worry,' the growers say. 'The U.F.W. misleads the public about dangers pesticides pose to farm workers,' the Table Grape Commission says. 'Governor Deukmejian's pesticide safety system protects workers,' the Farm Bureau proclaims. Ask the family of Juan Chabolla. Juan Chabolla collapsed after working in a field sprayed only an hour before with Monitor, a deadly pesticide. But instead of rushing Juan to a nearby hospital, the grower drove him 45 miles across the U.S.Mexico border and left him in a Tijuana clinic. He was dead on arrival. Juan, 32, left his wife and four young children in their impoverished clapboard shack in Maneadero, Mexico. Just after Juan Chabolla died, Governor Deukmejian vetoed a modest bill, strongly opposed by agribusiness, that would have required growers to post warning signs in fields where dangerous pesticides are applied. One billion pounds of pesticides are applied each year in the United States-79 percent of them in agriculture; 250 million pounds go on crops in California; in 1986, 10 million pounds went on grapes. And that 10 million pounds on grapes only covers restricted use pesticides, where permits are required and use is reported. Many other potentially dangerous chemicals are used that don't have to be disclosed. Grapes is the largest fruit crop in California. It receives more restricted use pesticides than any fresh food crop. About one-third of grape pesticides are known carcinogens-like the chemicals that may have afflicted Johnnie Rodriguez; others are teratogens-birth defect-producing pesticides-that doctors think deformed Felipe Franco. Pesticides cause acute poisoning-of the kind that killed Juan Chabolla-and chronic, long-term effects such as we're seeing in communities like McFarland. More than half of all acute pesticide-related illnesses reported in California involve grape production. In 1987 and '88, entire crews of grape workers-hundreds of people-were poisoned after entering vineyards containing toxic residues. In all those episodes, the grapes had been sprayed weeks before. All the legal requirements were followed. The vineyards were thought to be "safe." But farm workers were still poisoned. Illegal use of pesticides is also commonplace. Grape growers have been illegally using Fixx, a growth enhancer, for 20 years. Another illegal pesticide, Acephate, which causes tumors, has also been used on grapes. Over 2,000 consumers were poisoned in 1984 after eating watermelons illegally sprayed with Aldicarb. And these are only cases where growers were caught applying illegal chemicals. Farm workers and their families are exposed to pesticides from the crops they work. The soil the crops are grown in. Drift from sprays applied to adjoining fields-and often to the very field where they are working. The fields that surround their homes are heavily and repeatedly sprayed. Pesticides pollute irrigation water and groundwater. Children are still a big part of the labor force. Or they are taken to the fields by their parents because there is no child care. Pregnant women labor in the fields to help support their families. Toxic exposure begins at a very young age-often in the womb. What does acute pesticide poisoning produce? Eye and respiratory irritations. Skin rashes. Systemic poisoning. Death. What are the chronic effects of pesticide poisoning on people, including farm workers and their children, according to scientific studies? Birth defects. Sterility. Still births. Miscarriages. Neurological and neuropsychological effects. Effects on child growth and development. Cancer. Use of pesticides are governed by strict laws, agribusiness says. Growers argue reported poisonings involved only one (1) percent of California farm workers in 1986. True. But experts estimate that only one (1) percent of California pesticide illness or injury is reported. The underreporting of pesticide poisoning is flagrant and it is epidemic. A World Resources Institute study says 300,000 farm workers are poisoned each year by pesticides in the United States. Even the state Department of Food and Agriculture reported total pesticide poisoning of farm workers rose by 41 percent in 1987. Yet the Farm Workers aren't sincere when we raise the pesticide issue, grape growers complain. They won't admit that the first ban on DDT, Aldrin and Dieldrin in the United States was not by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1972, but in a United Farm Workers contract with a grape grower in 1967. Who will protect farm workers from poisoning if it isn't the farm workers' union? The Environmental Protection Agency won't do it. They're in bed with the same agricultural and chemical interests...
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Content

Related Tags