Ethical Decisions in Farming Business - Essay Example

Introduction Ethical behavior is the foundation on which any physical, economic and social infrastructure of any civil society is built (Hodges, 2003). Ethical decision making may affect the short-term business objectives of maximizing resource use and minimizing costs but it entails that policy decisions are undertaken after discussions with all stakeholders. Quality of life cannot be compromised with. It cannot be defined only in economic and consumption terms. When such concerns are allowed to dominate, the quality of life deteriorates. Animal farming is one such area of concern even though livestock has always played a key role in improving the life of humanity. Of late it has traveled from wildlife hunting for food, clothing and fuel to industrialization of animal agriculture. In recent years there has been a resurgence of awareness and concern about the hidden nature of industrial capitalist food production. Animal agriculture globally is affecting the earth, human health, the environment, the quality of rural life and the animals themselves in many ways. Today animal products are supplied to distant markets and animal agriculture has reduced the nature and animals to nothing more than vehicles of profit or money-making machines. Morals and ethics have been replaced by the motive to maximize profits. Besides, animal farming has found to be unsustainable as nitrates have been found in drinking water (Hodges, 2003). Such claims necessitated a research into the current position to determine how exactly mankind or the industrial corporations could introduce ethics in animal agriculture like any other business. Research Methodology and sources Research of current literature has been undertaken through online scholarly sources including published journal articles. These journals quote from various renowned ethicist and animal liberationists like Peter Singer amongst others. Streams of literature on ethics, on human healthy, conditions in farms particularly in Australia, and literature from other countries have been considered. All sources used have been properly cited. Research reveals that animal agriculture is unethical as it produces unhealthy food. Significant historical and social upheavals after World War II woke up the agricultural scientists and the government officials when public was supplied with cheap and plentiful food for various reasons. Land diminution, lack of trained people in agriculture coupled with technological advancements and economies of scale led to rapid industrialization of animal agriculture (Rollin, 2002). While number of trained people, declined, the number of animals produced increased. This was possible due to mechanization, technological advancements and the ability to confine large number of animals in battery cages. This resulted in less attention being paid to individual animals. Besides, technological innovation allowed the environments in which animals were kept to be altered. The environments today are against the nature but suitable for increased productivity. Not only the cages, even transportation of livestock and slaughter conditions are unethical and amount to cruelty. Sequoia (1990, p. 45) describes animals as the “…the immobilized machine parts of great automated assembly lines in darkened factories—tools whose sole purpose is to convert various feedstuffs, including some quite toxic substances, into flesh for human eating . . . ,” (cited by Fraser, 2001). Fraser further cites different authors who describe the living conditions of animals as highly detrimental to animal welfare. Intensive housing robs the animals of all the pleasures of life and they suffer from birth till death. Animals are believed to suffer the same mental anguish that would drive humans to suicide. Farms are now called factory farms where animals take over the work either as machinery or as oppressed workers. Today the animal agriculture is controlled by large corporations rather than by individuals or by families. The individual producers or family farms have been forced by economic necessity to “follow the lead of the multinational agrichemical conglomerates” (cited by Fraser). The residue of drugs, antibiotics and hormones in meat leads to various diseases like colic in infants, diabetes, migraine, heart attacks, and cancer of the bowels, cataracts and arthritis (Fraser, 2001). Animal agriculture is also harmful to the environment as it causes global warming and water pollution. In the tropical countries natural rainforest is destroyed to produce livestock while overgrazing and feed grain production lead to soil degradation. Animal agriculture is also increasing world hunger by using grain and land to produce animal products for the wealthy while depriving the basic necessities for the common people. The tragic epidemic of foot and mouth disease in UK in 2001 bears testimony that animal agriculture is unsustainable and that ‘radical measures are needed to cut through the deep malaise of farming’ (Hodges). The need for increasing external regulation itself suggests that concern is deep and needs immediate action. Even though the neo-traditionalists counter all the claims that animals lead a life of luxury and that housing is designed to protect the welfare of the animals, the true picture that emerges is far from true. It is astonishing that Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or ‘mad cow disease’ went unrecognized in UK in 1980s. For eleven years scientists believed that it was specific to cattle and could not affect human health (Hodges). They remained ignorant even how it was transmitted between cows. It was only in 1997 that scientists announced that nvCJD was a new fatal human condition caused by eating beef from cows affected with BSE. This leads to death but there is no early diagnosis or treatment available. Bovine somatotropin is used to improve milk production but there is public concern that it is harmful to cows, could get into the milk supply and hurt the small farmers and the rural economies (Cherney, 2004). Productivity of the unit may increase but the animals suffer as they are confined in small holes. Animals are no longer in natural environments for instance the battery cages for chickens are an example of consequences of industrialization. Antibiotics and vaccines allow the producers to confine these animals in high numbers. The philosophy of mass production led to animal factories which are characterized by stress, deprivation and disease in Australia (GO VEGAN, 2005). Animals are forced to live in cages which are barely larger than their own bodies. They are crowded so tightly together it leads to stress-induced cannibalism. Chickens in Australia raised for meat are factory farmed. In huge sheds more than 50,000 chickens are crammed together for sic weeks of their lives and they stand on their own stinking excreta. They are forced to grow unnaturally fast that their legs give way as the body balloons up. Many even die during the process as their hearts are unable to cope with the stress. Hens become immobilized in tiny cages that they die of asphyxiation or dehydration. Decomposing corpses can be found in cages with live birds. The life of an egg-producing hen under natural conditions is 10-12 years which is reduced to 18 months under animal farming. These commercial hens lay so many eggs that their bones snap from osteoporosis. Since caged birds peck each other, the end of their beaks is cut off with hot blades leaving them in pain for weeks. The day-old male chicks are crushed to death as they are unwanted. Pigs too suffer in close confinement and literally go mad. They keep chewing the metal bars of their stalls trying to clamber out of it. They give birth in a metal barred which has a concrete and slatted floor area. The dairy cows are forced to produce milk beyond their natural capacity which leads to early deaths. The modern dairy cow now yields 30-35 liters of milk per day ten times more than her calf would ever need. This leads to ligament damage and lameness. Mammals have to be stunned before slaughter as per law in Australia. For birds electric stunning is used to induce paralysis. According to Butler (2005), a very strong reason for cruel conditions in the factory farms is lack of people with first-hand experience of farm animals. The conditions that are prevalent today would have been regarded as abhorrent by the farmers but in most cases the farmers are not even aware of it. Abuses include calves that are kept away from the sun to pale their skin and the pigs are kept in crates so that they cannot even turn around or lie down. It is disturbing to note that animals are not insentient beings. They too have distinct cultures, extraordinary facial recognition, family bonding and even emotional reactions like mourning and depression. Not only are the animals kept in crowded housing, they are also fed antibiotics and hormones. These may accelerate growth and reduce animal disease, but create hazards to human health. Food gets contaminated with trace amounts of foreign chemicals, such as bovine somatotrophin. It is highly unethical to market such products as it is against human health. Links has also been established between the subtherapeutic use of antibiotics in animals and the increasing prevalence of resistant bacteria in humans. Analysis and recommendation Research into various streams of literature suggests that while prevailing conditions led to the industrialization of animal agriculture, subsequently commercialization of the industry led to unethical practices. Mankind has benefited with agricultural industrialization but progress has not been without costs. Any technology is meant for progress and improving the quality of life. Biotechnology or genetic engineering or molecular biology may intensify food production but if it affects the overall quality of life negatively, it raises concerns. Biotechnology may be able to solve the problem of hunger in developing countries but at what cost to mankind, should be the assessment. Advancement cannot be treated in isolation but in a global perspective. Peter Singer has rightly said, ‘animal factories are one more sign of the extent to which our technological capacities have advanced faster than our ethics’ (cited by GO VEGAN). Lack of land space and skilled people in farming have contributed towards industrialization but business ethics is a different issue. Technology is meant for progress and not for destruction. Mass production of animal food is possible due to use of antibiotics and hormones but these are detrimental to human health. The industry cannot be expected to go back to family farming but to meet the world hunger certain government regulations should be imposed. As in any other industry or shop floor, minimum space allotted per animal should be specified and regular health checkup of animals made mandatory by government authority. Disposing off corpses from among the livestock should be done twice a day to avoid stench. Hygiene and cleanliness should be imposed and as far as possible natural environment provided. In the long run these could also be economically beneficial since the deaths would be reduced. Use of hormones and antibiotics should be minimum and only against veterinary recommendations. Products from such animals should not be used for public consumption. Business ethics ultimately result in long-term financial gains while securing the health of the nation and its people. References: Butler, C. D., (2005), Free Trade in Food: Moral and Physical Hazards, Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, No. 21 Sustainability in Agriculture, The Royal Society of Chemistry, 20 Dec 2006 Cherney, D. J. R., (2003), Western Coordinating Committee-204 Goals and Why They Are Important to the Future of Animal Production Systems, 20 Dec 2006 Fraser, D., (2000), The “New Perception” of animal agriculture: Legless cows, featherless chickens, and a need for genuine analysis, American Society of Animal Science, J. Anim. Sci. 2001. 79:634–641 20 Dec 2006 GO-VEGAN (2005), Boycott Cruelty, 20 Dec 2006 Hodges, J., (2003), Livestock, ethics, and quality of life, 20 Dec 2006 Rollin, B. E., (2002), Livestock Production and Emerging Social Ethics for Animals, 20 Dec 2006 Read More