Professional Ethics of Farmers - Essay Example

Professional Ethics Paper: Mitch, the Farmer Professional Ethics Paper: Mitch, the Farmer Introduction In any profession, the executives of these businesses are faced with numerous ethical issues. In an attempt to work safely and in line with the set rules and regulations, managers and the concerned stakeholders are urged to model and emphasize on ethical behaviour strategies in the organization. With the changes that are taking place in the labour market in the contemporary world, ethical dilemmas are not alien to the professionals in any organization. Additionally, the present-day farmer faces countless ethical dilemmas in the event of coming up with the best solution towards the best farming techniques and plants to grow (James & Hendrickson, 2008). In this case, the decision reached by this farmer must be far sighted since all activities farmers carry out will not be exempted from the code of conduct. All the activities undertaken must be regarded as ethical; thus, minimal harm to the consumers or end users of their business activities. Of essence, this is to argue that farmers as professionals face multifarious ethical predicaments in the course of duty (James & Hendrickson, 2008). Ethical beliefs are, therefore, vital virtues in all professionals in the modern world, with farmers not exempted. This case shall shed light on the ethical dilemmas faced by Mitch, a farmer who has been approached by a bioscience company, Biogoods, to grow a genetically modified potato. This can in general terms be referred to as a complicated business, which begs a lot of caution prior to any undertaking or deal by Mitch. The ethical dilemmas in Mitch’s case Mitch’s dilemma revolves around what decision to make regarding his farming decision. Being offered a deal to grow genetically modified potato, he is left with the choice of either deciding to sustain his family with the farming career or drop the entire deal for the sake of the other farmers’ business. Taking a chance with genetically modified potatoes would risk a chance of pollinating the other organic crops cultivated in the areas. As a result, this would lead to other farmers losing their certification. Morally, this would be simply termed as an interference to previously set businesses. In actuality, I would term this as an intrusion to the long established farmers. Successful operation of Mitch’s farm would mean that the other organic crop farmers would stop their businesses for the sake of their safety with the law. The major ethical dilemma facing Mitch is whether to sacrifice his chance of making money out of this lucrative deal with Biogoods or let the other farmers carry on with their organic agricultural project. Being left with the chance to simply decide between his family and other farmers is bit complicated for him. If he comes to a decision of going for the dealing, the law might catch up with him, and if not the law, he will have to stomach the blame of dealing with the pain of devastating the lives of other people, who are also of the interest of making a living for endurance. Stakeholders in the ethical dilemma- potential conflicts and their interests In this ethical dilemma, the major stakeholders are inclusive of Mitch, the directors of Biogoods and the Mitch’s neighbors. Mitch falls in this case as he is the main determinant of whether the project of planting organic crops will be triumphant or not. On the other hand, the executives of the Biogoods Company are the major instigators of the projects set by Mitch, but are using Mitch as the implementer of the preparation. The neighbors, on another hand, will put up with a lot from the verdict made by Mitch as they will see a total obliteration of their project in the event of Mitch’s unbeaten enterprise. The interests of the Biogoods Company is to make a lot of profit from the growing the genetically modified potato. This is because growing the potato is cheaper since its drug prescription is not as expensive; thus, the end product will be less expensive to the consumers. The product is also indicated to have fewer allergic reactions to their consumers, therefore, a preferable consumer product by a majority of the consumers. Mitch’s neighbors are of interest of safeguarding their business by not losing their certification to growing organic crops. They will for that reason, not allow the growing of the genetically modified potato in their neighborhood, which would risk pollination of their crops. Mitch’s interest in the case is to amass a lot of money from the business to sustain his family. It is only through this chance that he would comfortably educate his children, from the expected huge profits. This chance will also help him to contribute to the community development. The potential conflicts relate to the fact that no party would let go the chance to fulfill their interest. Worse still, some of the parties in the ethical dilemma may be too aggressive in championing for their stay in the business. This is likely for the case of the neighbors who would want survival of their business, since Mitch and Biogoods are simply intruding in a previously established business. Responsibilities of the organization to address the dilemma- law descriptions and those by corporate culture, policy and procedure In the research conducted by Cummins &Lilliston (2004) and Thompson (2007), the overture of the genetically modified (GM) crops in the United States of America not only in the environment, but also in the food composition has caused a lot of controversies. This has resulted from the fact that a great percentage of the crops planted in the US will mostly be GM crops in the decades to come. With the indifference raging among the consumers of US towards the GM crops, it has become exceedingly complicated to accept these crops by the consumers. In this context, therefore, ethics majors on what to do and what not to do regarding the practices and policies related to GM crops. A valid example would be not growing GM crops since they would terrorize human lives and the environment (Cardoso & James, 2011). Bourrier & Baram (2010) continue to argue that though at times scientific experiments may be useful in coming up with crops fit for commercial purposes, it is not ethically correct to plant the same crops. In line to this argument, what is right involves linking the scientific concepts with ethical values so as to decide on what basics genetic modification ought to be developed. The responsibilities of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) to address the dilemma both law descriptions and those by corporate culture, policy and procedure must consider all-purpose principles such as the general welfare of the consumers. The organization must question if the GM crops will improve food safety or trim down use of pesticides in agriculture. On the other hand, the association must be quick to analyse if growing of GM crops will have unknown risks to the environment, in simple terms, the general welfare of the consumers. Yet another responsibility of the association will be to check the place of the consumers in the market, and whether these consumers will be well informed regarding the crop they will be consuming. This is a law description by the corporate culture (Cardoso & James, 2011; Gray, 2007). This policy and procedure mostly focuses on the safety of the end users of the GM crops. In the research compiled by Cummins &Lilliston (2004), biotechnology, ought to make information handy to all the partners concerned with the project. In this case, it would be of great advantage to evaluate whether the concerned parties are given a chance to carry out investigation, in a way that will uphold their intellectual veracity. No party should be maltreated for lack or insufficient information concerning the project. In the work of James & Hendrickson (2008), farmers are administered by ethics just like any other entrepreneurs. In line to these ethics, the association addressing ethical dilemmas is obliged to ask questions regarding evenhandedness of the business undertakings by the farmers. This relates to the major recipients of the introduction of the GM crops in the general public. In the event of harm and losses in the course of implementing the business plan, the organization must be enthusiastic to outline clear recompense methodologies. The new technology must not be taken for granted since a lot of repercussion may result from the same. The organization must be extremely keen to deal with these issues. The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and the ethical dilemma In relation to the work by Gray (2007), the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) indicates that the demand of organic foods is on the increase. This body advocates for safety of the consumers as opposed to the economic interests that revolve around this business initiative. In relation to this ethical dilemma, the decision made by Mitch must be foremost shifted to ensuring that the consumers of the organic crop are safe of all imminent harms. The OCA also indicates that most US organic producers are on the verge of filling in the increasing demand for organic products. Relating to the provisions of the OCA, this ethical dilemma must focus on safety of the consumers and compensation in the event of harm caused on them (Cummins &Lilliston, 2004; Jiménez-Arias, 2008). Mitch is therefore justified to come up with this initiative, so long as the consumers of the crop are safe. Mitch and the Biogoods Company must ensure that the consumers are able to make informed decisions regarding the GM crops. My personal values relating to the ethical dilemma- and the conflicting values In my opinion, though the Organic Consumers Association focuses on the safety of the consumers, I strongly believe that Mitch would be destroying previously established businesses by his neighbors. I would simply term this a self centered undertaking that would lead to the loss of livelihood to his neighbors. The conflicting values here would be Mitch’s need for his survival and not considering the other person. Egocentricity backed up by the laws and provisions of the OCA are evident in Mitch’s decision to progress with the growing of the GM crops. Mitch’s strategy to address the dilemma, risks and benefits he might face In relation to Gray (2007) work, the Organic Consumers Association provides for conditions for making fit choices, by the farmers and any local business persons. In this case, Mitch may set up a campaign strategy of mobilizing his consumers on the viability of GM crops by providing them with answers on the doubts revolving these crops. A reduction of the hidden issue revolving GM crops will automatically cause conflicts between the consumers and the consumers who would opt to keep up with the organic crops. So as to address the dilemma, Mitch should undertake to analyse the environmental damages that are supposedly resultant from the GM crops. The chemical composition of the GM crops should be well outlined to the consumers, who will in the long run, realize the viability of the GM crops in their neighborhood. The benefits that might ensue from this move are that a good number people will comprehend the reasons behind the formulation of this project, and the copious pluses for the project. Nonetheless, Mitch risks invariable law suits from the organic crop farmers for interference faults. This is more expressly if they lose their organic official recognition to Mitch and Biogoods project. Mitch also stands a high risk for losing the business prospect if the GM crop project does not stick to the policies and provision of the OCA. Conclusion It is evident that the issue of GM crops is surrounded by numerous issues from the above case (Evenson & Santaniello, 2006). It is also apparent that farmers ought to adhere to professional ethics just like any other business persons. This can be borrowed from the case of Mitch, the farmer who is not spared from the ethics behind setting up a GM crop business dealing. The consumer protection and safety take the center stage in this case, in line to the provisions of the Organic Consumers Association (Cummins &Lilliston, 2004). References Bourrier, M. & Baram, M. (2010). Governing Risk in GM Agriculture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cardoso, P. & James, H. Jr., (2011). Ethical Frameworks and Farmer Participation in Controversial Farming Practices. Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics. DOI 10.1007/s10806-011-9306-6. Cummins, R. &Lilliston, B. (2004). Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers. New York: Da Capo Press. Evenson, R. E.& Santaniello, V.(2006). International Trade and Policies for Genetically Modified Products. New York: CABI. Gray, K. (2007). Superfood Or Superthreat: The Issue of Genetically Engineered Food. New York: Enslow Publishers, Inc. James, H. S., Jr., & Hendrickson, M. K. (2008). Perceived economic pressures and farmer ethics. Agricultural Economics, 38(3), 349–361. Jiménez-Arias, L. (2008). Bioethics and the Environment. a Brief Review of the Ethical Aspects of the Precautionary Principle and Genetic Modified Crops. New York: LibrosEnRed. Thompson, P. (2007). Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. New York: Springer. Read More