The Food Security Act of 1995, the official title of the five-year farm bill, is markedly different than farm bills before it. Some American factions have decided in the past three decades that the history of modern agriculture needs an adjustment towards their own perception as to what is correct, ethical, and appropriate. Environmentalists, deep ecologists, pro-animal life organizations, and other like-minded liberals claim that some practices have destroyed the land, or are simply wrong and unethical. Examples include crop treatment that leads to environmental degradation, using too much land in production, and the inhumane treatment of animals. Furthermore, free market conservatives attacked agricultural policy as well; they cited a need to reform the federal system of agriculture supports, save the taxpayers some money, and balance the federal budget. These new agenda groups desired a complete overhaul of the decades-old system of helping American farmers; government and agriculture need to be separated as much as possible, if not completely.
The American government has always encouraged agriculture of the people; this agrarian encouragement has been supplanted with protection in the form of the Homestead Act, various tariffs, price supports, commodity subsidies, and the five-year farm bills. These things shield farms from malevolent weather, pests, and foreign crops. However, the 1995 farm bill aims to eventually remove all governmental assistance from American agricultural efforts. Commodities will not receive price supports, nor will the government purchase these commodities. Protection from foreign competition will disappear (as dictated by the North American Free Trade Agreement).
Ethics can be defined as that which should be done for the greater good of society, and taking responsibility for one's actions. However, most of today's legal and governmental ramblings focus not on ethics, but on legality; we try to determine what we can get away with, as opposed to what we should do or not do in society. In regards to agricultural ethics, DeWitt claimed that "ethics should include a basic understanding of the systems that sustain land and life." (8)
It is important to keep in mind Rolston's poignant views for certain pertinent phrases. He claimed that "policy does not exist in nature; policy arises when humans corporately and deliberately confront their environment." (246) He also said "a natural resource has value only when an economic use has been discovered for it. Resources in themselves have no value; they are valued, and command a price, only because they are capable of producing goods and services people want and are willing to pay for." (286)
It is evident that the 1995 farm bill is libertarian in nature. Libertarianism holds that "policies are justified only to the extent that they protect... against interference." (Thompson 39) The "leave alone" obligation inherent in libertarianism -- social laissez-faire taken to an extreme -- features the people's rights against the government; no taxes, no regulations, no benefits and services. (Burkhardt) In truth, a government might exist in a realistic libertarian world to protect from outside threats, to avoid chaos, and to provide for those things that the people cannot do alone (dispute resolution, mediums of exchange, infrastructure, et cetera). The basic argument against libertarianism -- and libertarian policy implemented in a non-libertarian America -- is that a lot of Americans are proud of their country: the history, accomplishments and people are important to them, and they want to keep that standard and quality of life, education, and (Judeo-Christian) ethics. These ethics are somewhat threatened by the theories and practices of libertarianism.
The members of this new agenda claim that the environment, the grandest of public goods, is being destroyed -- and the animals are being mistreated -- in the name of feeding the world. This "agrarian myth of good stewardship" (Thompson 131) could almost be considered damage control for today's agricultural reality: farmers have not always been good to Mother Nature, and She has revolted. "American farming practices have been and continue to be environmentally destructive. The most notable effects have been environmental contamination, habitat destruction, and resource depletion. This myth of stewardship implies that there is no such need for public policy," (Thompson 131) because why should the public intervene when the farmers are doing such a good job tending to the land? This is proof of public policy being written only as a response to the perceived need for rules to be in place and be in effect. Mother Nature has not just revolted; some would argue that all of the more-than-usual meteorological phenomena (hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc.) are Mother Nature's response to the bad things that humans have done to the land, air and water. Don't mess with the bull of Mother Nature, or you'll get the horns. She's fought millions of fights with the people of the world, and She is undefeated. If we are to implement policy that will solve environmental problems, the solutions must be "legal, politically viable, enforceable, cost effective, technologically feasible, environmentally sound, and ethically defensible." (Thompson 140) Although Rolston claimed that "government and business are large influence in our lives; both have vast amounts of power to affect the environment for good or ill," (247) the environment itself holds an immense power over government, business, and every sentient being on this good green Earth. It can render any or all of those entities useless; or, even worse, remove its status as an entity altogether.
Animal abuse is another claim by the new agenda on modern agriculture. The mere thought of any animal being forced to endure laboratory experiments, or hunted and/or skinned, or mistreated in horrific conditions is shocking and disgusting. Most people tend to think that life is sacred, and should be preserved, or at least respected. Animal welfare calls for moderate reform in animal agriculture, while animal rights refer to respecting their lives to the perfect end: not using them at all for food, clothing or experiments. Some animal rights advocates explain that contemporary American society should have advanced far enough by now such that humans do not need to depend on their primitive urge to eat meat. Others explain that if everybody decided to stop eating meats, fishes and poultry, all the grains and crops used to feed those animals in production could feed the rest of the world, and help end world hunger. However, some animal rights advocates are seen as too liberal -- almost radical -- because they often "dismiss researchers as unfeeling moral monsters on the same plane as the Nazi doctors who performed experiments on Jews." (Varner 228)
Humans should care about animals because both broad groups share several things in common: sentience, ability to feel physical pleasure and pain, and the ability to feel and communicate emotions and facts. That animals can feel pain should be enough reason as to why we should care, because that means that humans have the ability to cause pain to animals. Also, sentient beings should have basic rights of respect unto itself and their species; humans have human rights, so (other) animals should have faunal rights, and plants should have floral rights. "Moral consideration for animals is a simple extension of our general moral duty to minimize the existence of suffering, insofar as it comes within our power to do so." (Thompson 173) If the moral fiber of the nation does not reflect this moral duty, then we might feel a need to "legislate morality, at least in minimum essential areas" (Rolston 247) like animal welfare.
If commodities won't get any further price supports, and if the government won't purchase these commodity surpluses anymore, then small family farms might go under. That's the bottom line on an economic sense. But is that ethical? Is it in the infinite wisdom of the American government to bankrupt Ma and Pa Smith and their acres in Mingo Junction, Ohio, just so we can save some unknown species from endangerment, or keep only so much soil from eroding to nothing? Commodity surpluses are costly to support, but many economists believe that they act as agricultural insurance against famine and crop failure. If this insurance didn't exist, the public might see discontinuities in what was a comfortable continuous supply of food, as well as wildly fluctuating food prices. Neither is conducive to any society dependent on food for mere survival; and so the necessary guarantees for sustaining (human) life must be taken to ensure that we will at least survive and procreate another generation, to keep the species in perpetuity.
Those economists who claim that these economic supports impose a burden on society are in favor of the 1995 farm bill's basic scope of "eliminating all forms of price support, even if such a policy would force a lot of medium-sized farms out of business. Many policymakers endorse the stated goals of such a policy; however, they have reservations about the equity and fairness of the proposed means by which the farm sector would be reduced to a reasonable size." (Thompson 81) Those who opposed the 1995 farm bill say it's unethical because the mid-sized operations would take the vast majority of the costs and would be forced out of the agricultural industry. Proponents argue that the old system was unethical because of the damage to flora and fauna, and that the invisible hand of economics would simply take over in regards to supply and demand. And so the debate rages on; supporters of the farm bill claim that a libertarian system of agriculture will work in a somewhat non-libertarian America, and their opponents cry that the reforms punish the little guy.
The policy would be affected if a different principle were used. For example, an egalitarian would push for what was in place before this different-looking farm bill came into being, because there are obligations of providing for the public in the basic theory of egalitarianism. A utilitarian would survey people and collect data, and then make a decision. The economic consequentalist would run a cost-benefit analysis, and probably reach the same decision as the utilitarian and the egalitarian: it is in the best interest of the people to keep the former system in place.
If protection from foreign competition will completely disappear, and a true world market comes into play, then an economic version of Darwinism comes into play. Only the strong survive; but in this case, only the most-favored versions of commodities get the right to continue to exist. Florida tomato farmers will complain (and probably be forced into another line of work due to the aforementioned invisible hand), and Florida orange producers will jump for joy. Why? Because Florida orange juice is the best in the world, and everyone in the developed world knows this (thanks to a superior quality of product and a unique marketing scheme). Florida isn't well known for tomatoes, due to several factors: a lack of information about Florida tomato quality, the overpowering presence of oranges over tomatoes in Florida, and that (potentially) better tomatoes exist elsewhere in the world.
Also, the question should be asked if this is considered a form of foreign aid (instead of giving other nations money to compete on the same level as the big boys, we'll simply let you play our game with the same rules as we do). And is this aid "based on the concept of charity or the concept of justice"? (Thompson 192) Are we embarking on a positive duty of charity (which might seem voluntary, until you factor in self-interest motivation and the libertarian view of public duties not interfering with others) or are we righting a past wrong of third-world hunger? (Were we responsible for that in the first place, or did they bring that on themselves? Do all parties see America as that which can save us from the hell inflicted upon us, self-inflicted or otherwise?)
As with the previous example, if a different principle were used, the policy would also be different. The egalitarian would push for the pre-1995 standards for the exact same reason: egalitarianism pushes for obligatory provisions to the people. A utilitarian would survey more people and collect more data, the economic consequentalist would run another boring cost-benefit analysis, and I'd bet that they'd all conclude that the public would be better off to revert to the former system.
In conclusion, I am in favor of reverting back to the former system. Governmental assistance to American agricultural efforts is nearly required because of the very different economic needs of the farm from regular businesses; partial proof is offered by Knutson in the "four major problems that American agriculture faces that may merit the consideration of future policies:" (240)
Commodities need some form of price support, because it would cost the public way too much to not have this insurance system in place. I do favor a global market, but not right now; the world economy is fluctuating wildly due to politics and wars in Europe and Russia, and we need to have more time to sort this all out. Perhaps a better time will come to be if and/or when the European Union finally comes together, comes into being, settles down, and settles on all the number-crunching required for their currency, the euro. And, as stated earlier, federal emergency relief is a must in any field of work; crisis management is especially necessary after Mother Nature says her piece.
Works Cited
Burkhardt, Jeffrey. Agriculture and Natural Resource Ethics. Undergraduate course at the University of Florida. Lecture notes, Fall 1997.
DeWitt, Calvin B. Growing our Future: Food Security and the Environment. Katie Smith and Tetsunao Yamamori, editors. Kumarian Press: West Hartford, Connecticut. 1992.
Knutson, Ronald D., J.B. Penn, and Barry L. Flinchbaugh. Agricultural and Food Policy. Fourth Edition. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. 1988.
Rolston, Holmes III. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World. Temple University Press: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1988.
Rich, Tracey. Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws. http://members.aol.com/jewfaq/plain/kashrut.htm.
Thompson, Paul B., Robert J. Matthews, and Eileen O. Van Ravenswaay. Ethics, Public Policy, and Agriculture. Macmillan Publishing Company: New York, New York. 1994.
Varner, Gary E., Paul B. Thompson, and Deborah A. Tolman. Environmental Goals in Agricultural Science. Beyond the Large Farm: Ethics and Research Goals for Agriculture. Thompson, Paul B., and Bill A. Stout, editors. Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado. 1991.
Works Consulted
Almond, Brenda, editor. Introducing Applied Ethics. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, England. 1995.
Edel, Abraham, Elizabeth Flower, and Finbarr W. O'Connor. Critique of Applied Ethics: Reflections and Recommendations. Temple University Press: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1994.
The European Union. The Euro. http://europa.eu.int/euro/.