What Rights Should Farm Animals Have - Coursework Example

?FOOD INC Do animals have certain rights? Explain. Should these extend to animals we raise for food? What rights should farm animals have? This is ananti-cruelty law in the US that ensures the fair treatment of animals and to control the inhumane acts towards them. Animals are similar to humans in their basic understanding of the world and what they want and hence are entitled to some rights of being treated with decency. There may be no formal rights granted to animals but in my opinion it is an inherent principle that they should be protected from abuse. Some studies have also shown a relation between animal cruelty and human violence. Therefore, reduction in animal abuse can also cause some reduction in the violence among humans. There is a difference between the animals that are kept as pets and those that are raised for food. However, the treatment of the animals kept in farms and other places that are raised as food are entitled to a certain treatment. They are living beings and this gives them the rights of fair treatment, proper food and a good living environment. As portrayed by the film, a consumer wanting faster, cheaper food has altered the way chickens are raised. Is this a similar situation to the industry responding to consumer demand for cheaper products by hiring low-wage workers overseas? Why? Why not? I do not believe that the connotations are similar. Low wage workers that are being hired overseas are employed at rates that are lower than those that would be available within the country, however, for those workers, these wages are what are being offered generally within the country that they live in. the rates are not less than the average wage rate in the country hence, they are not been exploited and that the advantage of hiring them at low wages is generated through the technological advancements and the ability to work beyond the limitations of national boundaries. Chickens, being injected with anti-biotic and steroids cause abnormal growth and as seen in films inc, has tremendous effects over their health as their organs cannot keep up with the increase in body mass. This also results in animals dying which is highly unethical. Moreover, the conditions that the chickens are kept in are inhumane and they are being treated as raw material of mass production rather than living beings. The film gives the impression that food is either cheap or healthy. Do you think it is true that food is either one or the other, or is this a false dichotomy? The film shows that the food that is processed in large quantities and to a large number of consumers is using products that are cheaper in order for the end product to be cheaper, hence, more attractive to the purchaser. It is not necessary that the food that is cheap would not be healthy but the fact is that this is the way that the large corporations are making it. Large corporations make the products using cheap raw material and low cost methods for mass production that in turn produces food that is unhealthy. The film projects that the monopoly of large corporations is affecting the healthy food items and by offering cheaper products they are attracting the customers but they are actually putting a veil over the material that is used in the production and the processes that are implemented. In the film, we see that Stonyfield Yogurt is now owned by Groupe Danone, Tom’s of Maine by Colgate, Kashi by Kellogg, and Burt’s Bees by Clorox, which are all large corporation. Why might corporations continue marketing the small companies’ products under their original labels, as we saw in the film? How do you think consumers might react to learning that the products are actually made by big corporations? Small Corporations are known for their quality and authenticity. These products are preferred by consumers who are overwhelmed with choices from the large corporation that obstruct the healthy contents of the product through mass production. Burt's bees for example, produced products that started off with a mere room where the owner used real bees wax and original ingredients to produce products that were genuine and pure. The success of Burt's bees lay in the originality of the product and this led to its popularity among the consumers. As the product became well known, it came to be seen as an attractive investment for large companies. Similarly, other companies find it profitable to acquire small scale companies as a lot of people are now moving towards small scale company products and organic products due to the nature of the ingredients and processing used. As portrayed in the film, cost and efficiency drive our current food system. Should price be the most important force behind our food industry? How might our food system change if it was driven by other values, like health or environmental sustainability? The aim of businesses is to reduce costs and increase profitability while providing the consumers with what they want at competitive prices. This aim is nurtured through the mass production processes and the promotion of unhealthy food as it is consumed in large quantities. Companies are seldom concerned with what is morally or ethically correct but their focus is mainly over the economic aspects of trade. Although price should nit be the most important force behind the food industry, the sad reality shows that it is. Environmental sustainability is one of the major things that are being affected by businesses. If companies begin to take into account the affects of the products over health and the environment then they would probably change their entire way of manufacturing and processing. If companies start believing that businesses are the cause of the worlds environmental problems and they can become the solution to these problems while being profitable. Organic food is now growing in terms of popularity and now companies are moving towards organic products. The food system would move to organic products if they focus is shifted towards health and environmental sustainability. From Monsanto’s perspectives, it is expensive to develop new seeds like these, and the seeds save farmers time and enable them to produce more soybeans. What might be the consequences – both positive and negative – of the company owning the genetic information in the seed? Owning the genetic information in the seed gives the company the opportunity to be the sole owners of the production of the seed. This makes them profitable. Patented genes enable companies to own the rights to sell the seeds. The drawback, however, is that in order keep the sales going, the company has to make sure that the farmers buy the product instead of saving the seeds which makes them take unethical measures to ensure that the patents are not violated. Read More