The Solution: Part 1
Americans are constantly targets of stereotypes; we all drive gas guzzling SUV’s, we all suffer from obesity, we all have horrible taste in beer and none of us have the slightest idea of what is going on in the rest of the world. Of the standard set of stereotypes, there is one that seems to be more fitting than the others; Americans love fast food. Fast food has revolutionized the way the average American eats on a daily basis. There are nearly thirteen thousand McDonald’s restaurants in America today.[1] With the expansion of fast food in America came a centralization of food production, especially with regards to beef, an American favorite.
It is generally regarded as a good thing that Americans have access to such cheap food due to the centralization of meat and produce. In this article series, we plan to analyze the ethical dilemmas of the centralization of food production in America according to Peter Singer. We have already addressed ethical issues raised by Michael Northcott in his book A Moral Climate (See “Why Organic?”). We intend to analyze the opinions of Peter Singer in his book Practical Ethics along with Michael Northcott and attempt to apply their thoughts to the idea of the decentralization of food production in America. We will then analyze the counter argument of Jonathan Rushton in his book The Economics of Animal Health and Production.
These three thinkers bring us different perspectives on this issue that result in different conclusions. Singer and Northcott would agree that the current food production processes in America are, at the very least, bad, if not immoral. While Peter Singer might be more focused on the well-being of the animals and Northcott focused on the environmental effects of our food production process, they both would agree that a change needs to be made. Rushton argues that the centralization of food production in America has many advantages which are not worth giving up.
Peter Singer, in chapter ten of his book Practical Ethics, asks the question “Why should I act morally?” This question urges a person to develop reasons for acting with the consideration of others, human and, arguably, non-human animals, in mind. We will analyze this idea of acting morally with the consideration of non-human animals in mind to discover whether Singer would believe the decentralization of food production in America to be moral.
Here at The Organic Hype, we believe that the best solution to our problems (i.e. climate change, american obesity, loss of food appreciation etc) is to decentralize the food production process. Throughout this series, we hope to spell out what that would look like on a national scale and what you can do to contribute to The Solution.
The Solution: Part 2 (Sneak Peak)
Let’s take a look at what Peter Singer and Utilitarianism would tell us about the treatment of animals!
Citations:
[1] "Food Statistics McDonalds Restaurants (most Recent) by Country." Nation Master. Web. <http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/foo_mcd_res-food-mcdonalds-restaurants>.
The Solution: Part 2
(Peter Singer and Utilitarianism)
The centralization of food production in America has separated people from the food they eat. Americans are eating meat which has not been properly raised, we eat far more protein than our bodies require and we have little knowledge of the global warming effects. The centralized food production process in has negatively affected our environment, it has ruined the quality of food and it has, ultimately, changed the diets of Americans today.
In chapter three of his book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer argues that since equality for all humans has become an accepted moral standard, we should apply this same moral basis to those outside of our own species.[1] Singer cites Jeremy Bentham, the man he calls the founding father of modern utilitarianism, when comparing the treatment of people with black skin to the current treatment of animals. Bentham says “it may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs [and] the villosity of the skin... are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.” He then brings this compelling statement, “the question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” Many of Singer’s beliefs in regards to the treatment of animals are derived from modern utilitarianism.
Bentham’s school of thought within utilitarianism states that “pain and pleasure [are] the only intrinsic values in the world” and further “that the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.”[2] Along the same lines, Singer comments on speciesm, the idea that it is justifiable to give preference to beings strictly on the grounds that they are of the species homo sapiens. Singer recognizes that the practice of giving preference to homo sapiens is wrong.
The Solution: Part 3 (Sneak Peek)
In chapter three of his book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer argues that since equality for all humans has become an accepted moral standard, we should apply this same moral basis to those outside of our own species.[1] Singer cites Jeremy Bentham, the man he calls the founding father of modern utilitarianism, when comparing the treatment of people with black skin to the current treatment of animals. Bentham says “it may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs [and] the villosity of the skin... are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.” He then brings this compelling statement, “the question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” Many of Singer’s beliefs in regards to the treatment of animals are derived from modern utilitarianism.
Bentham’s school of thought within utilitarianism states that “pain and pleasure [are] the only intrinsic values in the world” and further “that the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.”[2] Along the same lines, Singer comments on speciesm, the idea that it is justifiable to give preference to beings strictly on the grounds that they are of the species homo sapiens. Singer recognizes that the practice of giving preference to homo sapiens is wrong.
The Solution: Part 3 (Sneak Peek)
What does Singer say about centralized food production?
Citations:
[1] Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. 48.
[2] "Philosophy: By Movement / School Modern Utilitarianism." The Basics of Philosophy: A Huge Subject Broken down into Manageable Chunks. Accessed March 26, 2012. http://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_utilitarianism.html.
Citations:
[1] Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. 48.
[2] "Philosophy: By Movement / School Modern Utilitarianism." The Basics of Philosophy: A Huge Subject Broken down into Manageable Chunks. Accessed March 26, 2012. http://www.philosophybasics.com/movements_utilitarianism.html.
The Solution: Part 3
(Peter Singer Continued)
In his book In Defense of Animals: A Second Wave, Singer argues against the current food production processes in America stating that they use cost benefit analysis to “justify crowding animals, the use of antibiotics in feed, and converting farming communities into factory towns.”[1] He continues on to list the many injustices that result from the centralization of food production. These injustices include the mutilation and killing of animals, risk of consumer disease, degradation of land, destruction of wildlife habitat, contribution to global warming and ultimately the harm to human dignity as a result of being active participants.[2] It is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Singer is against the centralization of food production and factory farming, but he does not explicitly state his opinion of decentralizing these processes.
I think it is fair to assume that Singer would support the decentralization of food production in America. Although Singer chooses not to consume meat and urges others to follow in his footsteps, utilitarian ideals would want the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, or, in this case, animals. It is clear that with the decentralization of food production, factory farms would be significantly smaller, if not entirely extinct. Factory farms are where the most injustices towards animals occur, so it can be assumed that the decentralization of food production in America would greatly reduce the amount of injustices towards animals. This would be the greatest good for the greatest number of animals.
The Solution: Part 4 (Sneak Peek)
What arguments can be made FOR centralized food production?
Citations:
I think it is fair to assume that Singer would support the decentralization of food production in America. Although Singer chooses not to consume meat and urges others to follow in his footsteps, utilitarian ideals would want the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, or, in this case, animals. It is clear that with the decentralization of food production, factory farms would be significantly smaller, if not entirely extinct. Factory farms are where the most injustices towards animals occur, so it can be assumed that the decentralization of food production in America would greatly reduce the amount of injustices towards animals. This would be the greatest good for the greatest number of animals.
The Solution: Part 4 (Sneak Peek)
What arguments can be made FOR centralized food production?
Citations:
[1] Singer, Peter. In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. p. 119
[2] Ibid.
The Solution: Part 4
[2] Ibid.
The Solution: Part 4
(Naysayers)
In his book The Economics of Animal Health and Production, Rushton argues that the current processes in America have two distinct benefits for Americans, which we should not abandon. The first is food security. He states that since the average American is living in urban environments with little access to livestock, we have become dependent on the system of relying on others to supply our food for us. He argues that our current system of centralizing food production in America has created security knowing that a sufficient amount of livestock will be produced and supplied to the general public.[1] This also forces the price of food products to stay at a manageable level, which allows for more people to afford food.
The second benefit to our current system is food safety.[2] He argues that since Americans have placed the responsibility of food production in the hands of fewer entities, it is inevitable that the food will be safe to eat. This can result from organizations, like the FDA, being able to address many of the large factory farms, making sure they are up to standards. In these two arguments, Rushton provides a compelling argument for the continuation of the centralization of food production in America.
The Solution: Part 5 (Sneak Peek)
The second benefit to our current system is food safety.[2] He argues that since Americans have placed the responsibility of food production in the hands of fewer entities, it is inevitable that the food will be safe to eat. This can result from organizations, like the FDA, being able to address many of the large factory farms, making sure they are up to standards. In these two arguments, Rushton provides a compelling argument for the continuation of the centralization of food production in America.
The Solution: Part 5 (Sneak Peek)
The conclusion! What do we at The Organic Hype think needs to be done about our food production process.
Citations:
[1] Rushton, Jonathan. 2009. The economics of animal health and production. Wallingford, UK: CABI. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=408053. p. xi
[2] Ibid.
[2] Ibid.
Here at The Organic Hype, we understand the arguments of all three of these writers. Each bring profound insights to this discussion. In the end, we as human beings must be conscious of our effect on the world and on other non-human persons. Northcott provides evidence showing how detrimental the consumption of beef alone has become due to our diets in America. Singer provides a great example for why we should treat non-human persons with as much respect and dignity as we do to our fellow human beings. On the other hand, the decentralization of food production in America would increase the price of food dramatically. Many families already struggle feeding themselves and this would have terrible effects on the poor. A question that must be addressed is whether or not decentralizing food production in America will solve all of the problems that come with climate change. The answer is no. Modern societies have created many different avenues of destroying the environment and this one change, no matter how drastic, will not ensure that climate change will discontinue.
A second question that must be addressed is the cost of organic, free range beef if America were to move to a decentralized model. We were unable to find academic studies which project the cost of beef in this hypothetical model, so we decided to investigate for ourselves. At our local grocery store, we found the cheapest beef at $3.49 per pound. This is obviously not organic, grass fed, free range beef, so we used this as the base price of a pound of meat currently available in our grocery store. We then looked for organic, free range, grass fed beef. The cheapest we found was $7.25 per pound. This is more than twice the cost of the cheaper beef selection available. There are many economic factors that would affect whether or not this would be the standard price of beef if the whole country moved to a decentralized model, so we cannot say with certainty what the price would be.
What we can say on this matter is that, as of right now, grass fed, organic, free range beef is a luxury item. It is not necessary at this time to purchase this more expensive beef if one is on a budget trying to feed a family. Our projection is that with the decentralization of food production in America, the average American’s diet would change drastically. Since the price of beef would increase significantly, our population would be forced to turn to different forms of protein. Quinoa, for example, has nearly eighteen grams of protein in one cup. Beans, lentils and legumes are also great sources of protein which would all be relatively cheap. This would make beef a product that we eat once or twice per week instead of once or twice a day. Although there may be terrible effects on the price of food, specifically beef and other meat products, in America and many people will suffer, we believe it is time for Americans to take responsibility for the world we are destroying. If we stay on this path, the amount of damage caused by global warming will result in food shortages and famines around the world. Within a few hundred years, there could be no poor to suffer from the high costs of food. If we do not change our food production processes here in America, we could be a leading cause of the destruction of our beautiful earth.
What to do now...? (Sneak Peek)
We at The Organic Hype have some ideas for what we can do to contribute to The Solution. It’s time for us to make a difference and positively impact our planet.
Looking back at the evidence presented in the “Why Organic?” series and “The Solution,” it is clear that we have a problem. Our population is growing and we continue to destroy our planet. We have already seen the effects of this in many areas, such as Africa and rural Asia. We believe that something needs to be done. Our ideal choice would be to decentralize the food production process here in America. We believe this would decrease the amount of animal-derived methane gases significantly, but it would also increase the cost of food.
Although there may be terrible effects on the price of food, specifically beef and other meat products, in America and many people will suffer, we believe it is time for Americans to take responsibility for the world we are destroying. If we stay on this path, the amount of damage caused by global warming will result in food shortages and famines around the world. Within a few hundred years, there could be no poor to suffer from the high costs of food. If we do not change our food production processes here in America, we could be a leading cause of the destruction of our beautiful earth.
So, what can we do? Obviously the food production process will not “decentralize” overnight. That would not be realistic, nor would it be good for the well being of many, if not all, Americans. I believe that anything is realistic, so those who say “The food production process in America will never decentralize” in my opinion have too little faith in not only the human race, but also underestimate the repercussions of what we are doing to our planet.
That being said, what should we do?
Next, we are going to give you FIVE things that you can do to be a part of The Solution!
The Solution: Part 5
Here at The Organic Hype, we understand the arguments of all three of these writers. Each bring profound insights to this discussion. In the end, we as human beings must be conscious of our effect on the world and on other non-human persons. Northcott provides evidence showing how detrimental the consumption of beef alone has become due to our diets in America. Singer provides a great example for why we should treat non-human persons with as much respect and dignity as we do to our fellow human beings. On the other hand, the decentralization of food production in America would increase the price of food dramatically. Many families already struggle feeding themselves and this would have terrible effects on the poor. A question that must be addressed is whether or not decentralizing food production in America will solve all of the problems that come with climate change. The answer is no. Modern societies have created many different avenues of destroying the environment and this one change, no matter how drastic, will not ensure that climate change will discontinue.
A second question that must be addressed is the cost of organic, free range beef if America were to move to a decentralized model. We were unable to find academic studies which project the cost of beef in this hypothetical model, so we decided to investigate for ourselves. At our local grocery store, we found the cheapest beef at $3.49 per pound. This is obviously not organic, grass fed, free range beef, so we used this as the base price of a pound of meat currently available in our grocery store. We then looked for organic, free range, grass fed beef. The cheapest we found was $7.25 per pound. This is more than twice the cost of the cheaper beef selection available. There are many economic factors that would affect whether or not this would be the standard price of beef if the whole country moved to a decentralized model, so we cannot say with certainty what the price would be.
What we can say on this matter is that, as of right now, grass fed, organic, free range beef is a luxury item. It is not necessary at this time to purchase this more expensive beef if one is on a budget trying to feed a family. Our projection is that with the decentralization of food production in America, the average American’s diet would change drastically. Since the price of beef would increase significantly, our population would be forced to turn to different forms of protein. Quinoa, for example, has nearly eighteen grams of protein in one cup. Beans, lentils and legumes are also great sources of protein which would all be relatively cheap. This would make beef a product that we eat once or twice per week instead of once or twice a day. Although there may be terrible effects on the price of food, specifically beef and other meat products, in America and many people will suffer, we believe it is time for Americans to take responsibility for the world we are destroying. If we stay on this path, the amount of damage caused by global warming will result in food shortages and famines around the world. Within a few hundred years, there could be no poor to suffer from the high costs of food. If we do not change our food production processes here in America, we could be a leading cause of the destruction of our beautiful earth.
What to do now...? (Sneak Peek)
We at The Organic Hype have some ideas for what we can do to contribute to The Solution. It’s time for us to make a difference and positively impact our planet.
The Solution: Part 6
Looking back at the evidence presented in the “Why Organic?” series and “The Solution,” it is clear that we have a problem. Our population is growing and we continue to destroy our planet. We have already seen the effects of this in many areas, such as Africa and rural Asia. We believe that something needs to be done. Our ideal choice would be to decentralize the food production process here in America. We believe this would decrease the amount of animal-derived methane gases significantly, but it would also increase the cost of food.
Although there may be terrible effects on the price of food, specifically beef and other meat products, in America and many people will suffer, we believe it is time for Americans to take responsibility for the world we are destroying. If we stay on this path, the amount of damage caused by global warming will result in food shortages and famines around the world. Within a few hundred years, there could be no poor to suffer from the high costs of food. If we do not change our food production processes here in America, we could be a leading cause of the destruction of our beautiful earth.
So, what can we do? Obviously the food production process will not “decentralize” overnight. That would not be realistic, nor would it be good for the well being of many, if not all, Americans. I believe that anything is realistic, so those who say “The food production process in America will never decentralize” in my opinion have too little faith in not only the human race, but also underestimate the repercussions of what we are doing to our planet.
That being said, what should we do?
Next, we are going to give you FIVE things that you can do to be a part of The Solution!
1 comment:
I'm enjoying the articles since they aren't pushy. More thought than politics. I appreciate the optional perspectives being weighed against each other.
M hoping your blog resend grows and others engage via comments.
Post a Comment