Skip to main content

Environmental Impact and Environmental Values

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Food and Agricultural Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective

Abstract

This chapter completes coverage of environmental risks begun in Chap. 6, which emphasized both the philosophical rationale for expected-value risk analysis, along with weaknesses in the way that approach has been applied to agrifood gene technology. This chapter discusses ethical objections to expected value analysis and takes up classical questions in environmental ethics. These include the basis for associating moral value with non-sentient entities such as plants, collectivities such as species or ecosystems and also for nature or the environment itself. The chapter proposes a novel approach to these problems based on the standpoint or attitude of the valuing subject. Classic approaches that stress intrinsic or instrumental valuation presume that valuation proceeds from the perspective of a spectator standing aloof from nature. Although classic approaches have not presumed that this spectator is a human being, the good of any entity derives from the spectator’s gaze. This is consistent with the notion of value as a consumption activity. In contrast, a more engaged, involved or truly environed approach can be elicited by taking the perspective of a producer. This is an especially fortuitous approach for developing an environmental ethics for agriculture and food.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alphonce, R., F. Alfnes, and A. Sharma. 2014. Consumer vs. citizen willingness to pay for restaurant food safety. Food Policy 49: 160–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ankeny, R.A. 2019. From food consumers to food citizens: Reconceptualizing environmentally conscious food decision-making. In Food, environment and climate change: Justice at the intersections, ed. E. Gilson and S. Kenehen, 267–279. London: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ankeny, R.A., and H. Bray. 2018. Genetically modified food. In The Oxford handbook of food ethics, ed. A. Barnhill, M. Budolfson, and T. Doggett, 95–111. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous. 2000. Defending ‘consumerist’ ethics (interview with Peter Singer). The Philosopher’s Magazine 9: 60–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baier, A. 1986. Poisoning the wells. In Values at risk, ed. D. MacLean, 49–74. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baier, A. 1994. Moral prejudices: Essays on ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogner, A., and H. Torgersen. 2018. Precaution, responsible innovation and beyond–in search of a sustainable agricultural biotechnology policy. Frontiers in Plant Science 9: 1884. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. 1962. Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, J. 1994. Nature/theory/difference: ecofeminism and the reconstruction of environmental ethics. In Ecological feminism, ed. K.J. Warren, 158–178. London and New York: Routledge Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clancy, K. 1997. 1996 Presidential address to the agriculture. Food and human values society. Agriculture and Human Values 14: 111–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comstock, G. 1989. Genetically engineered herbicide resistance, part one. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2: 263–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comstock, G. 1990. Genetically engineered herbicide resistance, part two. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3: 114–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, M. 1991. The very structure of scientific research mitigates against developing products to help the environment, the poor, and the hungry. The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 4: 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, M. 1995. Biotechnology is not compatible with sustainable agriculture. The Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 8: 98–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H., and J.J. Cobb. 1989. For the common good. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davion, V. 1994. Is ecofeminism feminist? In Ecological feminism, ed. K.J. Warren, 8–27. London and New York: Routledge Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Bakker, E., and H. Dagevos. 2012. Reducing meat consumption in today’s consumer society: Questioning the citizen-consumer gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25: 877–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. 1925[1981]. John Dewey the later works, 1925–1953, V. 1: Experience and Nature. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devall, B., and G. Sessions. 1985. Deep ecology: Living as if nature mattered. Salt Lake City, UT: Peregrine Smith.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellstrand, N.C., and L.H. Rieseberg. 2016. When gene flow really matters: Gene flow in applied evolutionary biology. Evolutionary Applications 9: 833–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frédéric, T. 2018. Ethics of biotechnological research. In The paths of ethics in research in Laos and the Mekong Countries: Health, environment, societies, eds. A.M. Moulin, B. Oupathana, M. Souphanthong, and B. Taverne Bernard, 103–110. Dakar: L'Harmattan-Sénégal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, E. 2014. Vote with your fork? Responsibility for food justice. Social Philosophy Today. 30: 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilson, E., and S. Kenehan (eds.). 2019. Food, environment and climate change: Justice at the intersections. London: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, K.M., A.A. Agrawal, B.V. Lewenstein, and S.A. Wolf. 2015. The monarch butterfly through time and space: The social construction of an icon. BioScience 65: 612–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R.M. 1981. Moral thinking: Its method, levels and point. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove, E.C. 1989. Foundations of environmental ethics. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove, E.C. 1994. Science, ethics and the care of ecosystems. In Natural protected areas and wilderness, ed. J. Peepre and B. Jickling, 44–60. Whitehorse, Yukon: Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hettinger, N. 1995. Patenting life: Biotechnology, intellectual property, and environmental ethics. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 22: 267–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann-Riem, H., and B. Wynne. 2002. In risk assessment, one has to admit ignorance. Nature 416: 123–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, B. 2000. Ideal code, real world: A rule-consequentialist theory of morality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, R. 1990. The politics of womens’ biology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, R., and E. Wald. 1993. Exploding the gene myth: How genetic information is produced and manipulated by scientists, physicians, employers, insurance companies, educators, and law enforcers. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huttner, S., H.I. Miller, and P.G. Lemaux. 1995. U.S. agricultural biotechnology: Status and prospects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 50: 24–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, W. 1991. Our vision for the agricultural sciences need not include agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 4: 207–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, W. 1994. Becoming native to this place. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaebnick, G.E. 2007. Putting concerns about nature in context: The case of agricultural biotechnology. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 50: 572–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E.F. 1990. Physics and the emergence of molecular biology. Journal of the History of Biology 23: 390–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J., Jr. 1989. Biopesticides and economic democracy. In Biotechnology and sustainable agriculture: Policy alternatives, ed. J.F. MacDonald, 75–81. Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolleck, R. 1993. Controversies about risks and their relation to different paradigms in biological research. In Science, politics and morality: Scientific uncertainty and decision making, ed. R. von Schomberg, 27–42. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kolleck. 1995. The Limits of experimental knowledge: A feminist perspective on the ecological risks of genetic engineering. In Biopolitics: A feminist and ecological reader on biotechnology, ed. V. Shiva and I. Moser, 95–111. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korthals, M. 2001. Taking consumers seriously: Two concepts of consumer sovereignty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14: 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korthals, M. 2004. Ethics of differences in risk perceptions and views on food safety. Food Protection Trends 24 (7): 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korthals, M. 2015. Ethics of food production and consumption. In The Oxford handbook of food, politics, and society, ed. R. Herring, 231–252. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S., and R.P. Wrubel. 1996. Agricultural biotechnology and the environment: Science, policy, and social issues. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma, J., and J.C. Besley. 2008. Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: From bio-to nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2: 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, H. 2005. Values and objectivity in science: The current controversy about transgenic crops. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanyon, L.E., and D.B. Beegle. 1989. The role of on-farm nutrient balance assessments in an integrated approach to nutrient management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 44: 164–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehner, M. 2013. Alternative food systems and the citizen-consumer. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 3 (4): 49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. 1949. A sand county almanac and sketches here and there. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L. 1995. Whose ethics for agricultural biotechnology. In Biopolitics: A feminist and ecological reader on biotechnology, ed. V. Shiva and I. Moser, 175–190. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L., and S. Carr. 1997. How biotechnology regulation sets a risk/ethics boundary. Agriculture and Human Values 14: 29–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R.C. 1992. Biology as ideology. New York: Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Losey, J.E., L.S. Rayor, and M.E. Carter. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399: 214–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, L.A., N. Kalaitzandonakes, L. Wilkins, and L. Zakharova. 2007. Mass media framing of biotechnology news. Public Understanding of Science 16: 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506065054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellon, M. 1992. The regulation of genetically engineered animals: Going from bad to worse. In Animal biotechnology: Opportunities and challenges, ed. J.F. MacDonald, 165–169. Ithaca, NY: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mies, M. 1993. New reproductive technologies: Sexist and racist implications. In Ecofeminism, ed. M. Mies and V. Shiva, 174–195. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nord, E.A., and L.E. Lanyon. 2003. Managing material transfer and nutrient flow in an agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 32: 562–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, L.R. 2016. Is it time for a socio-ecological revolution in agriculture? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 235: 13–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC (U.S. National Research Council). 2000. Genetically modified pest protected plants: Science and regulation. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC (U.S. National Research Council). 2002. Environmental effects of transgenic plants: The scope and adequacy of regulation. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passmore, J. 1974. Man’s responsibility for nature. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, C.J. 2008. Synthetic biology: Drawing a line in Darwin’s sand. Environmental Values 17: 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, H., III. 1991. Environmental ethics: Values in and duties to the natural world. In Ecology, economics, ethics: The broken circle, ed. F.H. Bormann and S.R. Kellert, 73–97. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, III, H. 1999. Genes, Genesis, and God: Values and Their Origins in Natural and Human History. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. 1986. Values and preferences. Ethics 96: 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. 1988. Biotechnology and the environment: What is at risk? Agriculture and Human Values 5 (3): 26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagoff, M. 2007. The economy of the earth: Philosophy, law, and the environment, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R.L. 2009. Character and environment: A virtue-oriented approach to environmental ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schurman, R., and W.A. Munro. 2010. Fighting for the future of food: Activists versus agribusiness in the struggle over biotechnology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, N.D. 2018. Food, genetic engineering and philosophy of technology. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sessions, G. (ed.). 1995. Deep ecology for the 21st century: Readings on the philosophy and practice of the new environmentalism. Boston: Shambabla Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. 1993. Monocultures of the mind: Perspectives on biodiversity and biotechnology. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siddig, A.A., A.M. Ellison, A. Ochs, C. Villar-Leeman, and M.K. Lau. 2016. How do ecologists select and use indicator species to monitor ecological change? Insights from 14 years of publication in Ecological Indicators. Ecological Indicators 60: 223–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. 1979. Practical ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.B. 2010. The agrarian vision: Sustainability and environmental ethics. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.B. 2017. The spirit of the soil: Agriculture and environmental ethics, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.B. 2018. Farming, the virtues and agrarian philosophy. In The Oxford handbook of food ethics, eds. A. Barnhill, M. Budolfson, and T. Doggett, 53–66. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P.B., R. Matthews, and E. van Ravenswaay. 1994. Ethics, Agriculture and public policy. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varner, G.E. 2012. Personhood, ethics, and animal cognition: Situating animals in Hare’s two-level utilitarianism. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., F.J. Pérez-Cueto, M.D. de Barcellos, A. Krystallis, and K.G. Grunert. 2010. European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Science, 84: 284–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westra, L. 2011. Ecological integrity and biological integrity: The right to food. In Sustaining soil productivity in response to global climate change: Science, policy, and ethics, ed. T.J. Sauer, J.M. Norman, and M.V.K. Sivakumar, 103–115. Chichester, West Suffix UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wickson, F. 2014. Environmental protection goals, policy & publics in the European regulation of GMOs. Ecological Economics 108: 269–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, J.L. 2005. Eating right here: Moving from consumer to food citizen. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 269–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul B. Thompson .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Thompson, P.B. (2020). Environmental Impact and Environmental Values. In: Food and Agricultural Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective. The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61214-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics