Minakshi
Bhardwaj,
Fumi
Maekawa,
Yuki
Niimura,
Darryl RJ
Macer*
*Corresponding
Address:
Institute
of Biological Sciences, University of Tsukuba,
Tsukuba
Science City 305-8572, Japan
Fax:
Int+81-298-53-6614 Tel:
Int+81-298-53-4662 Email: asianbioethics@yahoo.co.nz
This paper presents analysis of interviews conducted at the
United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) during June to August
1999, which reveal the concerns behind the development of the Ethics in Food
and Agriculture Program at FAO. Formal interviews with 103 staff members of all
positions and across all divisions of FAO, revealed
that although ethics as a word was not widely and openly discussed at FAO until
the end of the 1990s, as indicated by the nature of the programs and policies,
the members had deep ethical motivation for their work. The results of the key word
analysis of the interviews are presented under the general issues of food,
rural development, information, genetic modification, private sector and
funding, environment, animal issues and personnel matters. Most of the interviewed staff saw ethics as the basis of
the constitutional mandate, with the role of FAO being to promote global
food security, balanced conservation, management and utilization of natural
resources, and sustainable rural development. Information dissemination, and
the need for a participatory approach were also raised as major issues by a
third of the people interviewed.
Interview research was
conducted at the Commission of Genetics Resources in Food and Agriculture, Food
and Agricultural Organization, Rome, Italy (June-August 1999). Analysis
conducted at University of Tsukuba.
Keywords: Ethics, FAO, Food, Agriculture, Food policy,
Environmental governance
1.
Introduction
Governments of the world joined together in 1948 to create
the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) to work in the
service of humanity for food production. Based on the constitutional mandate,
and interpretation of the mandate by member countries, the role of FAO is to
promote global food security, balanced conservation, management and utilization
of natural resources, and sustainable rural development. The mandate can be
interpreted as a call to action, based on the ethical principle of beneficence
that is seen in the preamble of the constitution (underlines added for
emphasis) (FAO, 1948):
"The
Nations accepting this Constitution, being determined to promote the common
welfare by furthering separate and collective action on their part for the
purpose of: raising levels of nutrition and standards of living of the peoples
under their respective jurisdictions; securing improvements in the
efficiency of the production and distribution of all food and agricultural
products; bettering the condition of rural populations; and thus contributing
toward an expanding world economy and
ensuring humanity's freedom from hunger; hereby establish the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations."
"Ensuring humanity's freedom from hunger",
is the most commonly cited mission of FAO in documents, and was also expressed
in the 7 commitments of the World Food Summit in 1996. The ethical role of FAO has been
interpreted broadly by member countries, and has been reworded in the 1999
Strategic Framework (Article 30) in three inter-related global goals which FAO
is dedicated to helping member countries achieve (FAO,1999a):
Access of all people at
all times to sufficient nutritionally adequate and safe food, ensuring that
the number of chronically undernourished people is reduced by half by no later
than 2015.
The continued contribution
of sustainable agriculture and rural development, including fisheries and
forestry, to economic and social progress and the well-being of all.
The conservation,
improvement and sustainable utilization of natural resources, including
land, water, forest, fisheries and genetic resources for food and agriculture.
During the twentieth century "bioethics" has
emerged as a term to summarize the ethical issues associated with moral
dilemmas involving living organisms.
While much recent attention in bioethics has focused on medical ethics
and human health questions (Beauchamp & Childress,,1989), but
the concepts of bioethics have also long included the ethics of agriculture (Mepham, 1995;
Thompson, 1998), and ethics of scientific research. The initial
use of the word "bioethics" in English was in the field of environmental
ethics (Potter, 1971). Although in simple terms bioethics has been called love
of life (Macer 1998), it is a broad concept linking many traditional and
contemporary academic fields. Human attitudes to the environment and to the use
of natural resources and biotechnology are within the definition of bioethics
(Macer, 2002). However, there is debate over how the term "bioethics"
includes human duties towards non-living parts of the environment like rocks
and natural resources, so for the purpose of this paper we will use the broader
term "ethics".
There are several basic theories of ethics, and the simplest
distinction that can be made is whether they focus on the morality of the
action itself, the consequences of the action, or the motives behind it. Another distinction is to consider
deontological theories (concerned with duty), utilitarian theories (concerned
with achieving the greatest good for the greatest number), and egoism
(concerned with achieving the greatest good for the moral agent). In practice
people and organizations usually use a mixture of these systems when faced with
ethical dilemmas.
Concerns
over ethics have been made more urgent by the fact that the crisis of the
environment is touching agricultural production and people in every country. The objects, and subjects, of ethics
can be viewed in terms of ecocentric, biocentric or anthropocentric concerns.
The ecocentric concerns, that value the ecosystem as a whole, are used when
expressing some environmental concerns.
Biocentric thinking puts value on individual organisms, for example one
tree or one animal. We could also use biocentric to describe arguments when the
whole species is valued. There is a trend for more ecocentric values to be
included in legislation, with protection of ecosystems for their own
value. For example, the concept of
maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in fisheries from 1966; the Convention on
Biological Diversity (1992) which begins "Conscious
of the intrinsic value of biological diversity..."; or Part 3 of
the South African water law which separates the concept of the "ecological reserve" from the "human needs reserve".
The FAO, as with the other UN organizations, have direct
reference to humanity as a whole, not just one member country, or one ethnic
population. The UN has a role to emphasize ethical values that may be
overlooked in the current global economic system that places highest value on
markets, especially in its attempts to eradicate poverty. Practical ethics
includes respect for human rights, and we can see this represented by the
increasing attention by civil society organizations (CSOs), governments and
United Nations bodies to overcoming poverty, gender inequality and better
participation of all persons in decision making in society.
This paper presents results of analysis of interviews
conducted by us at the FAO during the period of 3 months in June to August
1999. In that period we conducted formal interviews with 103 staff members in
all positions and across all divisions of FAO. The purpose was to seek a wider
description of the views of FAO staff on the ethical issues facing FAO for
development of the Ethics in Food and Agriculture Program of FAO.
2.
Methodology of Research
The
concepts of ethics may be described by different terms when applied to
different fields. Before
conducting interviews, common phrases used in FAO documents, and by members of
the subcommittee on Ethics in Food in Agriculture during a briefing seminar
held with the subcommittee and the authors, were compared with common terms in
the bioethics literature. This is
shown in Figure 1.
Ethics Literature FAO
Terminology
Balancing of principles Appropriate
advice
Beneficence (love) Hunger
alleviation
Justice and solidarity Equity,
food security, right to food
Respect for autonomy Participation
Communitarianism Partnership
of knowledge
Do no harm, non-maleficence Safety,
quality, precautionary principle
Future generations interests Sustainability
Conflict
of interest Conflict
of interest, (impartiality)
Following
that, a letter was sent to all the Directors of the Divisions in FAO seeking a
formal interview with both senior members of their Division, and persons who
they suggested. This letter
introduced us, with mention of the Director-General's mandate to investigate
the appropriate development of an ethics in food and agriculture program at
FAO. However, the methodology to
interview people from every division, was from our desire to be as
comprehensive as possible in order to understand the work of FAO and its
mandate.
Interviews were conducted with people identified
through this process, with representatives in all divisions, and subsequent
interviews were also conducted with persons referred to in this initial round
of interviews, and through analysis of the documents FAO had produced. The
interviews were deliberately conducted by exploring general issues first, for
example, by asking questions, "What is the mandate of the division, and
your duties?", "What is ethics in your mind?", "What
ethical issues do you face in your daily work at FAO?", "How did you
cope with these issues?", "Who did you talk to about these
issues?", "How
have you and FAO responded to these issues, or how do you deal with them when
they arise?", "Can you give some examples of projects, papers and
policy that deals with these issues?" Then the interviewees were asked
"What are the major ethical issues facing FAO?", and "What do you think is the ethical responsibility of
FAO?". The key point was not to introduce any ethical issues until
the respondents had raised them themselves.
As specific issues were raised, further
questions were asked in order to elaborate so as to obtain as much information
as possible. The detailed
interview questions were flexible, with the primary focus being on obtaining
information to allow a description of the views of people, that was helpful in
providing recommendations to FAO.
Among the 103 people interviewed, all inhabited continents
were represented by persons from 36 countries, though significantly 74% of the
people belonged to rich countries (Table 1). There were few people from Asia,
but many from Western Europe. The interviews were conducted in English and 67%
of people interviewed were Anglophones, 20% Francophones and 13% spoke Spanish
as their mother tongue. Two thirds of the interviews were conducted for more
than one hour, and only 10% were completed within half an hour (because of the
schedule commitments rather than lack of interest). Only 4% of interviewees refused
to be taped, although 11% made some comment about the recording of the
interview that suggested some anxiety over future use of the tape.
Approximately 40% the persons had attended a committee meeting on the ethics of
food and agriculture inside FAO at least once.
The gender balance of FAO is male-orientated and 82% of the
interviewees were men, representing higher positions of division directors and
section chiefs. Two thirds of the subjects were over 45 years old. They covered
all departments of FAO. More than half had worked over 10 years in FAO and only
about 8% had prior experience of private companies.
The content of the interviews was assessed for
keywords and concepts, by analyzing transcripts of the tapes, and interview
notes made by each participant in the interview. The majority of interviews were conducted by the four of us
together with one interviewee, but several interviews were also conducted with
two or more people at the same time.
To clarify issues raised in interviews, or emergent issues from
subsequent interviews, a few persons were interviewed on multiple occasions,
but the results referred to in the analysis are for the initial interview made
with the person. Based
on notes made and tape recordings, each keyword was categorized as either:
dominated, high, medium, little, and not stated (Table 2).
"Dominated" indicated that the subject was a dominant issue in the
interview, and the arbitrary scale was drawn in a scale down to "not
stated" at all. "Little" refers to the case when the issues was
mentioned only in one or two sentences, for example.
3.
Ethical Issues Raised in Interviews With Staff Members
The study showed that although ethics as a word
was not openly discussed at FAO until the end of the 1990s, as indicated by the
nature of the programs and policies, the members who we spoke with had a strong
underlying ethical motivation for their work. The enthusiasm for their work was
also seen by people not formally interviewed. However, there may still be a
selection bias in how the subjects were selected for interviews, that means we
cannot claim that the results represent the whole of FAO staff.
Table 2 shows a summary of the results of the key word
analysis of the interviews, and the results of the keyword categorization as
either: dominated, high, medium, little, and not stated. The initial analysis
listed around 100 keywords that were identified from the interviews, including
many that were not clear before in the pre-interview literature review. The
emphasis was to initially be as inclusive as possible, and all the keyword
categories were recategorised under the categories listed in Table 2.
The types of issues represented by the keywords in the table
are explained by some quotations from interviews conducted with staff members
of all positions and across all divisions of FAO below. To maintain
confidentiality, which was a condition for conducting the interviews in an
uninhibited way, we do not identify the persons making the comments. For
simplicity, the second column in Table 2 titled "major issue"
indicates the number of persons who gave a "high" or
"dominated" rating to that issue. Some of the key issues raised, as
presented in Table 2 are discussed below.
a) Food
Food security was a major issue being cited by 42 persons,
since it is in the constitutional mandate, as discussed above. A typical comment was: "Not to use or not to modify nature would be the most
comfortable advice to give, but it may not take into account a number of
realities including hunger and number of people in the world." The
right to food in a legal sense as under the United Nations Declaration for
Human Rights was a major issue for 19 persons. There are, however, regions of
the world where food production is sufficient, which was said to allow those
societies to spend more time and money to improve the quality of life of
farmers and animals. Another person said, "There
is already overproduction of food in Europe but still we continue to push for
increased productivity. It is a
crazy idea. Why modify food or use
an artificial way of feeding animals if there is already over-supply of food."
The problem of food security was seen in many contexts. For
example, it was related to unequal distribution of food, as well as to people's
image of food. The image of what is a food is a cultural concept that changes
over time, as someone else said: "What is food?
What is considered as food in US is very different from what is understood in
Asia and Africa, also in Europe. For example, milk is food in some countries
where others don't accept it." Food quality was also a major issue for 14 persons, and 12
persons saw consumer's health as a major issue.
Also data on food can be difficult to obtain, as the someone
in the Statistics Division said, "It is very difficult
to get figures from the groups which have very low consumption and also from
very high consumption, because they do not report. Low consumption people live
on streets and how can we catch them? It is difficult to find them and ask them
to fill in our questionnaire. Also, from the people from very high income is
difficult to know what they consume and how they consume."
A controversial issue that is basic to poverty and hunger is
defining what a minimum standard of life is. Poverty was a major issue for 18
persons, although 28% did not mention it.
As one person said: "One of the major
problems with poverty is that it reduces options. You don't have ways of
experimenting to solve your problems and find new solutions, and that is part
of sustainability." Poverty was mentioned much more than the principle of
justice, suggesting that the first focus for these persons was on dealing with
practical issues rather than underlying principles of ethics.
b) Rural
development
Participation at all levels was considered necessary and a
third raised it as a major issue, to meet the demands of poor countries and
improve the quality of life. The participatory approach should be effected by
stimulation of people at all levels in the recipient countries to be more involved
in decisions over the entire food production system. While this is based on the
concept of autonomy, the ethical principle of autonomy was not raised directly.
To be truly descriptive we need views from a wide variety of persons and
cultures. As a person from Codex Alimentarius raised: "The challenges we face in terms of ensuring that there is a
balance of perspective on different issues, there is participation from
developing world in the discussion and evaluation, and development of advice
that we give in the principal key areas, like food quality and safety issues in
biotechnology, animal feeding issues to address, BSE or Madcow disease, dioxin
contamination, and so on."
Sustainable rural development was a major issue for 18
persons, but the term is difficult to define and encompasses a number of
keywords (Table 2). As a person in Sustainable Development department in FAO
said: "Environment is the part of everything in
FAO and it is related to sustainable rural development, and since it is very
broad, it is difficult to define sustainable rural development."
Sustainable rural development was viewed as important for sustainability and to
provide greater good and economic self-sufficiency to the developing countries.
It is also reflected in many of FAO documents.
Farmer's life quality was raised as a major issue by 15
people. If we are going to serve humanity we need to consider ways to make
farmer's lives better, as one person said: "Farmer's life is not easy.
Making that life easy is part of FAO's mandate." Nine people said that life is becoming
more difficult given the rapidity of change, as typified by the comment: "The major problem right now is that the massive change that
is occurring, which is not particularly selective. For example a television channel
reaching persons in an African village has much more impact on that culture
than a television show seen in a developed country.", where they
are used to modern society and media. The transition from small to large farms
was a major issue raised by 12 people. More philosophical comments that
agriculture is part of nature were raised by 15 people (Table 2).
The rapid change due to
modernisation and intensive agriculture in terms of environmental changes, was
also noticed among the interviews as a major issue by 7 persons. The
intensification and modernization debates highlight differences between North
and South and countries with different population densities. This includes the questions of use of
high yielding plant and animal varieties and external inputs, and pesticides
were mentioned as a major issue by 7 persons (under the Environment heading in
Table 2). The Green Revolution was
targeted at increasing production and was particularly successful in the short
term, but has now been recognized as having created environmental and social
problems. There are some examples of alternative agricultural methods that
generally reduce external inputs and improve productivity.
We need research to serve humanity not just for the profits
of companies. An example of this is integrated pest management (IPM) which has
been supported as an initiative of FAO since 1967. Agriculture has a
multifunctional nature and there has been a call to look at the causes of
environmental and social problems arising out of new applications in
agricultural production.
c)
Information
Information dissemination is central to the modern
information society, and viewed as a major role for FAO by a third of the
people interviewed. As one person
said, it has to be responsible: "One of the
problems with technologies like GMOs is that they have the potential to make
tremendous changes. Media has made
GM technologies like Frankenstein monsters, and ordinary people, who want to
live their life peacefully, are not surprisingly frightened. So some type of
ethics is involved in informing people at community level and at country level.
Giving balanced information about the impacts of these technologies, means that
overtime they could give themselves, or might be given, the opportunity to
learn about them and make good decisions." However an integrated
communication policy was only released in 1998 (FAO, 1998).
Another central role for FAO as the United Nations
Secretariat for Food and Agriculture is being a forum for debate and an honest
broker in the discussion of issues, which often involve conflict, which was
also raised as a major issue by a third of all persons interviewed (Table
2). The exchange of views can be
considered to be a sharing of information. Transparency was viewed as essential for being a credible
international agency. Independence and academic freedom, the freedom of
expression, which are parts of scientific ethics, are important in the eventual
resolution of controversial and difficult problems. For example, we give
quotations below from persons raised on three different continents:
"Is it ethical to eat pork or
beef? We are working for a diverse supermarket. We need provisions for all.
Most important is to take note of what stakeholders need. Our role is to try to
catalyze and provide a forum for discussion as codex. If needed, set standards
and those standards have to be followed by members of the organization."
"FAO should become a platform
for exchange of information in agriculture research system, at national,
international and regional level."
"The usual way of FAO to deal with burning issues is to let
them calm down and then take a position."
Eventually descriptive information gathering may morally
call us to prescriptive action, to follow our professional responsibility in
whatever our vocation is, because we are human beings. However action should be coordinated,
as another person said: "We should not undermine
the national and international efforts which are going on on their own. Why
should FAO be competing and funding, and bringing in experts instead of
developing the local ones. That is the question."
Project design is a prerequisite for many researchers who
work to help international aid. It should be coherent and relevant to the needs
and capabilities of the nations. As one advisor in the FAO Technical
Cooperation Department said, "A project is stopped
only when money is not flowing in, not when it is bad. Usually we don't come to
know the project is doing badly until mid-term because it takes so long to
start the project, so the problems do not come up in the first year."
Freedom of speech and integrity are basic human rights that
may be difficult for some persons in an industrial setting or as government
spokespersons. One person who had varied work experience, made this comment:
"The good thing working for FAO rather than
working for a private company is that I have never been forced to say
something, write something or propose something against my mental judgment, and
that is a big luxury I think, compared to working with private company."
Access to information, technology transfer, and the safety of technology are
associated major issues seen by the interviewees.
Consumer choice is one of the virtues applauded in modern
society, and issues like labelling and increasing participation of consumers in
deciding what products are sold in the markets were emphasized. Information
including shelf-life, and content, respects the consumer's right to know what
is in their food, empowering them to make more informed choices. For example, a
few persons said, "We have the duty to give
appropriate or correct information to people to make their choice." It remains a matter of research how much information
is a benefit and when too much is a hindrance to choice, but we should note that
choice and labelling (both GM food and ecolabels) were not major issues raised
in these interviews.
d) Genetic Modification (GM)
GM food and GM issues were a commonly cited major issue by
over a third of the persons, but was perceived to be a particularly important
future issue for FAO to deal with. The issues can be confused, as a member of
the Codex Alimentarius Commision remarked, "Part
of the GM food debate is deliberately muddied because people mix environmental
issues with food safety issues." Public opinion studies show
acceptance of GM food has fallen in the past few years. The concerns people
have include their own health, lack of controls, no labels, fear of the
unknown, and some think it is unnatural. The environmental concerns are
important also, as a FAO staff member said, "GM
crops and their effects on environment and genetic diversity is a major issue
because any farmer who is offered a very good variety that exceeds the one they
have, will abandon the land races that we have and we might loose the
variability that we need."
There have been several FAO publications on the subject of
biotechnology (FAO, 1997). It is rather interesting to note that the issues
related to genetic modification like cloning and terminator technology, which
are generally raised in public debates and media were not such high priorities
to FAO staff, as 80% of people did not mention them.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (1999) had approved
guidelines in June 1999 on organic food. However, it was mentioned only by a
few persons, generally who were internal activists for the organic movement
through an internal FAO organic food mailing list, and 82% did not mention it. As an active supporter said, "Organic agriculture was very difficult to push into FAO's
agenda, as nobody wanted it. When put into the agenda, it was with the
intention that it was going to be turned down by the countries. Now it has
become an official act in FAO, but there is a lot of resistance to it still.
The official line in FAO is the New Green Revolution, which was based on high
inputs, in terms of technology, irrigation and organic agriculture are given
low priority because of the GM issue, which is big noise in FAO. There is a big
momentum around the world for organic food, which made Codex to develop
guidelines."
The internal debate is reflected in what one FAO staff
member said regarding another widely debated issue, food irradiation, and the
organic food debates: "Codex Alimentarius
recommendations regarding organic food, that organic food should not be
irradiated is very strange, because irradiation is the only treatment which
leaves no residues at all. But it is a good example because on one hand organic
is supposed to be natural and because the term "irradiation" is
frightening for everyone and we felt that it is not compatible with it. On the
other hand the use of manures to fertilize organic foods without any controls
in the Codex indicating that the manure has to be sterilised. It is a clear
indication that not very much authoritative thought has gone into this issue,
in fact we are starting to see in the last 5 years, food borne diseases of
animal origins on horticulture products and that is because of the organic food
movement. In the past, I was very cynical because there were many food
manufacturers and many were frauds. They traded with the name organic food but
when the analysis of the food was done, it was found to be contaminated or
contained additives. There is nothing wrong with the concept, but there are
certain conditions when products go to the market. One of them is that they
have to be safe. If they are not safe, you have to declare that they are a
hazard, and let the consumer decide if they want to risk that hazard. But
organic foods unfortunately do not have that sort of scrutiny as other foods
and they are becoming more and more responsible for food borne diseases."
e)
Sponsorship, Funding and the Private Sector
Some persons,
even at very senior positions were not sure how to deal with the private
sector, "One of the main problems is how to deal
with the private sector, because they are part of work, but they are so big
that we never can tell whether we are dealing in the right way or not."
This issue was raised by 19 people, with a full spectrum of opinions for and
against FAO association with private industry. A reflection of the division is
seen in the fact that the policy for projects with NGOs including private
sector was formalised in 1999 (FAO, 1999b, 1999c), and a separate
administrative unit on this issue was not established until the mid-1990s.
Corruption in general was raised as a major issue by 15 people, and from the
private sector by 13 people.
Sponsorship by FAO was also a major issue that was raised, and relates to
maintaining the view of FAO as a honest broker.
Quality of life is affected by economics, and cash cropping
may substitute money for food, as another said: "Developing
countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe say that tobacco production is an
important economic activity for the lives of many poor people. So you have made
a judgment that is basically working against the interests of certain poor
constituencies. So people just tend to look at the multinationals and
forgetting the other private sector (poor farmers) who don't have another
choice."
The developing and developed country divide was raised by 15
people. Big multinational companies are dominating many decisions and will
affect the quality of life in different parts of the world, shifting resources
from the poor to the rich. One
economist said, "The idea of putting a competition
between very small farmer families with very little means and rich farmers of
the United States and Europe with huge production means is almost criminal."
Globalization is taking control away from small breeders, as
one person said: "Recent understanding shows that
plants are more genetically similar than we thought through species, and the
only big difference is in the change of regulatory genes. That might be helpful
to explore the shifts in genetic variability, and allow changes without going
to transformation across species and across kingdom. So these might be exciting
opportunities for developing countries to give them new tools that are not
under the control of big companies like Monsanto or Novartis."
f) Environment
The environmental concerns due to biodiversity loss and the
need for sustainability of genetic resources were expressed in the interviews.
The farmer's rights to access to genetic resources and their ownership was
considered an urgent issue by 21 people, given the global privatization of
agriculture taking place. Genes are the building blocks of the varieties of
plants and animals. They are
protected under the Convention on Biological Diversity, if gathered after that
time. However, much more ethical
debate is needed on this subject, including farmer's rights. Many persons
attempt to protect the poor from losing intellectual property rights, as one
person said: "As an agricultural economist, for
me, ethics is more on the economics side. It is more related to protect the
rights of people in third world, developing countries. Ethics is also the
rights of farmers to own the ownership of the local varieties, which they are
producing for centuries, which is written by international seed business."
Natural Resource Management was a major issue raised by 8
people, and includes different parts of the environment. Access to land and its
management is a basic issue, for a farmer the soil is the beloved medium of
their food and livelihood, across all cultures. "When
you address the problems associated with unequal distribution of land, the land
being concentrated in few hectares and a number of inhabitants having no access
to land. May be it is a problem of economic efficiency, or a problem of market,
but it is also a problem which should be considered from an ethical point of
view. Ethically it is not legitimate that you concentrate thousands of
hectares, at the same time when a lot of people are looking for land, for food,
labor opportunities, employment, or even to die, which is seen in Africa where
the idea is that each person belongs to the land, so each person needs a piece
of land. Those are ethical concerns."
The ethics of the conservation, management and utilization
of natural resources for present versus future generations is a fundamental and crosscutting
issue, and has been considered within a variety of legal instruments, and in
academic literature. The ethical issues from the question of what are common
and shared natural resources in this generation was also raised for a number of
natural resources, and it represents the dilemmas of the commons. The commons
was mentioned as a major issue by 4 people, whereas biodiversity loss was
mentioned a major issue by 12 people.
While 41% mentioned future generations, it was not a major
issue raised, and there was little agreement on the timescale. One person said "Intergenerational ethics can't be applied for infinity, But
should apply 2 to 3 generations at the minimum." A sceptic said, "We should really talk about passing sound measurements and
sustainability from one generation to another. The people who are not
agriculturists want short run solutions. People want to feed the world, green
the land or dispose the weeds without really counting what is really going to
happen in future generation."
g) Animal
Issues
Animal rights is sometimes said to be a concern of rich
countries, but it is found everywhere. In Table 2 we see separate issues of
capture, husbandry, transport and killing that were raised. Some put the dilemma like: "There are concerns of intensive farming especially in the FAO
perspective of the West, but it is not a luxury to allow this. We have to be
careful in animal health, in balancing the nutritional supply of food. For
example, for happy chickens versus malnourished children." Animal
welfare is a controversial issue and it has also been highlighted by the
intensification of animal agriculture, especially chickens and pigs. As one
interviewee said:" Practically, there are
significant differences between rich and poor countries, so that the conditions
expected in housing or slaughterhouses for animals in rich countries can even
be better than the people's houses in poorer ones". It was considered the duty of the FAO
to offer guidance to farmers and countries that wish to implement better ways
of handling animals rather than presuming that all poor farmers only want to
increase production.
Animals relation in work was raised by 20% of the people,
but only 3 mentioned it as a major issue.
As a person in the animal division said: "We
are conscious of the suffering of animals as individuals. When we are involved
in projects which have the development of the farm animal labour, before
designing we have to take into account the safety of animals. Because, for
example, we have invested a lot of resources into an oxen and we do not want to
lose it. If we look at the economics of the enterprise, if the animals are fed
well, it is safe." A holistic view is needed, including not only
immediate concerns of animal welfare but also the risks for spread of disease
and pollution.
h)
Personnel Issues
These
issues were not the object of this study, however due to the non-leading
approach to asking people to give ethical issues, some people raised these
issues (Table 2). These issues are important for representatives of
international organizations who work in a range of cultures, where practices
such as giving gifts to guests are common manners. There is a specific
Personnel Division that has a mechanism for consideration of these issues.
4.
Discussion and Conclusion
These
interviews give us an insight from inside FAO secretariat of their role in
seeking ethical solutions to the issues raised in global food and agriculture.
The emphasis on food security is ethically justified given the number of people
who face starvation. If we ask
philosophically what are the origins of this, we could say it stems from the
love of others, the basic ethical principle of justice. However, we also see
the argument that food security promotes socio-economic stability being used,
both nationally and internationally.
Similarly, the work to ensure access to food for all, stems from
beneficence and justice. The
ethical imperative is urgent, given the number of lives lost, the loss of quality
of life, the substantial environmental impact of satisfying food needs, and the
availability of natural resources for present and future generations.
FAO's mission is targeted to "ensuring humanity's
freedom from hunger". This role is based on the principles of ethics that
could be related to the terminologies used in FAO interviews and in the
documents (Figure 1). All of the subjects used at least one of the terms
participation, hunger alleviation, justice in allocation of resources, and
sustainability in the course of their interviews; which clearly tells the
fundamental ethical principles motivating their work.
Although most ethical issues have a long history, and new technology tends to highlight issues from different angles, there may be some ethical issues that have not been discussed widely in a global dialogue, and others not even foreseen at present. The dissemination of scientifically correct, unbiased information and the role of an honest broker were clearly thought to be major objectives of FAO's staff. There needs to be public information in order to allow the public to make informed decisions about food (Thompson, 2001). In addition to this, most staff saw it as their role to be a type of global think tank for ways to accomplish the mandate of FAO.
FAO has established itself as an innovator in some areas of environmental ethics, for example, with the concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in fisheries since 1957, support for integrated pest management (IPM) since 1965, the Peasant's Charter in 1979, the World Soil Charter in 1982, and the range of agreements on protecting plant genetic resources, that lead to the formation of the Intergovernmental Commission for Genetic Resources in Food in Agriculture. This study showed that although ethics as a word was not openly discussed at FAO until the end of the1990s, many of the programs and policies were founded from the principles of ethics, and the unspoken agenda for many of the staff was based on ethical principles.
While it can be useful to isolate distinct issues as we have
done in Table 2, they must be considered as a whole. For example, it is not realistic to separate the
relationship of a farming practice to the natural environment and the social
system. Production of food through agriculture, as with almost all of human
life and activity, is not an isolated activity of a person but is a social
activity involving many relationships with people and the ecosystem. One piece
of advice that calls for holistic interpretation was given to us by an
assistant director-general at FAO was: "If you try
to embrace all the fields of ethics, you will get very easily lost. If you try
to see all the linkages between food and agriculture, morals of societies, you
can go very far, going to all problems together." Often the
problems seem too complex but specific issues can be identified and
incorporated in policy, planning and action. Rather than viewing the issues as
problems a positive view would treat them as opportunities for resolution.
Specific
opportunities can be identified to tackle some of the ethical issues identified
through these surveys, and these should be incorporated in policy, planning and
action. Each governmental or intergovernmental body is called to take a stand
(for, against or no comment) on issues that relate to their constitutional
mandate and the needs of the people.
There is an ethical imperative for such bodies to be involved in areas
where they can be a productive partner in achieving the general goals of their
member parties. Often these general goals are expressed in a constitution and
in ongoing general conference reviews and future work plans. Taking a stand may
mean, for example, to say a given technology is good or bad under a given case,
to express a neutral position, or to decide not to comment. Perhaps the most
controversial of all issues was the use of genetic engineering in agriculture,
which finds a variety of views between staff interviewed, as well as between
member countries.
We would argue that rather than viewing these issues as problems as some staff also did, FAO would progress further if difficult issues are taken up for debate, learning about different views, with the goal of reaching mutual understand that is a prerequisite for resolution. The role of FAO to promote global food security, balanced conservation, management and utilization of natural resources, and sustainable rural development is based strongly on ethical principles. FAO should fully and publicly assume its ethical responsibilities, gathering and sharing information on ethics in its areas of mandate, acting as an interactive forum, and providing expert guidance on policy options and choices based on practical ethical analysis.
The warm welcome and frank comments of FAO staff are gratefully acknowledged. The members of the Sub-Committee on Ethics in Food and Agriculture and the Committee on Ethics in Food and Agriculture were helpful, and we acknowledge the invitation and support of the Director-General of FAO to D.M. under the visiting scientist program, and the invitation to the other three authors under the Volunteer Program to FAO. The authors are particularly grateful to the FAO Staff members, Prof. Jose Esquinas-Alcazar, Mr. Clive Stannard and Ms. Margret Vidar for their constant advice. We appreciate critical comments made by Dr. Ralph Early on this paper.
Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (1989) Principles
of Biomedical Ethics, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Codex
Alimentarius Commission (1999). Guidelines for the production, processing,
labeling and marketing of organically produced foods. Rome: Codex Alimentarius Commission.
CAC/GL 32.
FAO (1948).
Constitution,
http://www.fao.org/legal/basictxt/
FAO (1997).
Biotechnology and Food Safety, FAO Food and Nutrition Paper 61, Rome: FAO/WHO.
FAO (1998). FAO
Corporate Communication Policy and Strategy. FAO. Rome.
FAO
(1999a). The Strategic Framework for FAO for 2000-2015. Rome: FAO/WHO. http://www.fao.org/strategicframework/
FAO (1999b). FAO Policy
and Strategy on Cooperation with Non-Governmental and Civil Society
Organisations. Rome: FAO/WHO.
FAO (1999c). Principles
and guidelines for FAO Cooperation with the private sector. Rome: FAO/WHO.
Macer, D.
R. J. (1998). Bioethics is Love of Life: An Alternative Textbook, pp.1-4. Christchurch: Eubios Ethics
Institute.
Macer, D.
R. J., editor in chief, (2002). UNESCO/IUBS Bioethics Dictionary. Christchurch: Eubios Ethics
Institute.
Mepham, T.B., Tucker, G. A. & Wiseman, J., eds., (1995) Issues in
Agricultural Bioethics. Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.
Potter,
V.R. (1971). Bioethics: A Bridge to the Future. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Thompson,
P. B. (1998). Agricultural Ethics: Research, Teaching and Public Policy. Des Moines: Iowa State University
Press.
Thompson,
P. B. (2001). Risk, consent and public debate: some preliminary considerations
for the ethics of food safety, International Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 36,
833-844.
United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (1992). Convention on Biological
Diversity Geneva: UNEP. http://www.unep.ch/conventions/
Period at FAO
|
% |
|
|
First year |
8 |
|
|
1-3 years |
9 |
|
|
4-6 years |
16 |
|
|
7-10 years |
11 |
|
|
Over 10 years |
56 |
|
Prior work experience
|
||
|
UN organization |
12 |
|
|
National government |
17 |
|
|
University |
16 |
|
|
Company |
8 |
|
|
International Aid Agency |
9 |
|
|
World bank etc. |
2 |
|
|
NGO |
2 |
|
|
None |
5 |
|
|
Not stated |
28 |
|
Global region
|
||
|
West
Europe |
45 |
|
|
East
Europe |
2 |
|
|
Australasia |
6 |
|
|
Canada |
4 |
|
|
USA |
12 |
|
|
South
America |
10 |
|
|
Africa |
6 |
|
|
MiddleEast / North Africa |
7 |
|
|
Japan |
5 |
|
|
Asia |
5 |
|
Rank in FAO
|
||
|
Assistant
Director-General |
7 |
|
|
Division
Director |
25 |
|
|
Section
Chief |
24 |
|
|
Other
Permanent Positions |
37 |
|
|
Short
term |
7 |
|
Department inside FAO
|
||
|
Agriculture
Department |
30 |
|
|
Economic
and Social Department |
9 |
|
|
Fisheries
Department |
7 |
|
|
Forestry
Department |
16 |
|
|
Sustainable
Development Department |
8 |
|
|
Legal
Office |
5 |
|
|
General
affairs |
6 |
|
|
Technical
Cooperation Department |
11 |
|
|
Personnel
Division |
2 |
|
|
Office of
the Director General |
8 |
|
Table 2:
Importance of ethical issues raised in interviews
|
Issue |
Major Issue (N) |
Rating of the importance given by
interviewees (%) |
||||
|
|
|
Dominated |
High |
Medium |
Little |
Not
stated |
|
FOOD |
||||||
|
Food security |
42 |
9 |
32 |
18 |
24 |
17 |
|
Right to food |
19 |
3 |
16 |
13 |
22 |
47 |
|
Justice |
6 |
0 |
6 |
14 |
31 |
49 |
|
Poverty |
18 |
0 |
18 |
24 |
30 |
28 |
|
Overpopulation |
2 |
0 |
2 |
9 |
23 |
66 |
|
Emergency food aid |
3 |
0 |
3 |
11 |
19 |
67 |
|
Food quality |
14 |
3 |
11 |
11 |
22 |
54 |
|
Antibiotics |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
94 |
|
Consumer's health |
12 |
1 |
11 |
13 |
23 |
53 |
|
RURAL DEVELOPMENT |
||||||
|
Sustainable rural development |
18 |
7 |
11 |
21 |
26 |
35 |
|
Dependency on experts |
10 |
0 |
10 |
27 |
38 |
26 |
|
Scientific ethics |
11 |
2 |
9 |
18 |
26 |
45 |
|
Participatory approach |
30 |
8 |
22 |
34 |
17 |
20 |
|
Gender issues |
10 |
4 |
6 |
8 |
16 |
67 |
|
Youth labour |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
19 |
79 |
|
Intensive agriculture |
7 |
3 |
4 |
11 |
18 |
65 |
|
Small vs large farms |
12 |
3 |
9 |
18 |
12 |
59 |
|
Farmer's life quality |
15 |
2 |
13 |
12 |
21 |
52 |
|
Farmer's health |
7 |
1 |
6 |
7 |
20 |
67 |
|
Toxic dumping |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
91 |
|
Rapid change |
9 |
2 |
7 |
16 |
17 |
59 |
|
Urbanisation |
7 |
2 |
5 |
17 |
28 |
49 |
|
Agriculture part of nature |
15 |
2 |
13 |
8 |
21 |
54 |
|
Cultural differences |
10 |
3 |
7 |
13 |
29 |
48 |
|
INFORMATION |
||||||
|
Information access |
13 |
6 |
7 |
18 |
38 |
31 |
|
Information dissemination |
32 |
11 |
21 |
30 |
25 |
14 |
|
Technology transfer |
17 |
5 |
12 |
15 |
30 |
38 |
|
Project design |
8 |
0 |
8 |
15 |
37 |
41 |
|
Project evaluation |
6 |
0 |
6 |
18 |
22 |
55 |
|
Safety of technology |
16 |
2 |
14 |
13 |
19 |
53 |
|
Can I speak my mind vs. FAO |
3 |
0 |
3 |
15 |
15 |
68 |
|
FAO honest broker |
35 |
5 |
30 |
34 |
20 |
11 |
|
Transparency |
14 |
2 |
12 |
18 |
26 |
42 |
|
Consumer choice |
4 |
1 |
3 |
10 |
32 |
54 |
|
GENETIC MODIFICATION (GM) |
||||||
|
Organic
food |
3 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
10 |
82 |
|
GM food |
22 |
6 |
16 |
15 |
32 |
31 |
|
GM labeling |
3 |
1 |
2 |
9 |
22 |
67 |
|
GM environment |
12 |
5 |
7 |
13 |
16 |
60 |
|
GM ethics |
17 |
5 |
12 |
17 |
21 |
46 |
|
Biosafety training |
7 |
1 |
6 |
15 |
15 |
64 |
|
Terminator |
7 |
1 |
6 |
4 |
11 |
78 |
|
Monsanto |
2 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
90 |
|
Animal cloning |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
12 |
85 |
|
Human cloning |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
5 |
95 |
Table 2:
Importance of ethical issues raised in interviews (continued)
|
|
|
Dominated |
High |
Medium |
Little |
Not
stated |
|
SPONSORSHIP AND FUNDING |
||||||
|
FAO sponsorship |
18 |
2 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
48 |
|
Corruption |
15 |
3 |
12 |
14 |
33 |
39 |
|
Company money is corrupt |
13 |
2 |
11 |
9 |
29 |
49 |
|
World Bank |
4 |
0 |
5 |
7 |
12 |
76 |
|
Private sector |
26 |
7 |
18 |
22 |
20 |
33 |
|
Developing/Developed divide |
20 |
4 |
16 |
33 |
16 |
32 |
|
Donor vs. recipient demand |
13 |
0 |
13 |
26 |
24 |
37 |
|
Governments |
6 |
2 |
4 |
38 |
22 |
34 |
|
International laws |
12 |
3 |
9 |
24 |
37 |
28 |
|
Over regulation |
2 |
0 |
2 |
12 |
31 |
55 |
|
Trade barriers |
7 |
2 |
5 |
18 |
26 |
50 |
|
WTO |
3 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
11 |
84 |
|
Product substitution |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
18 |
78 |
|
ENVIRONMENT |
||||||
|
Biodiversity loss |
12 |
4 |
8 |
19 |
26 |
44 |
|
Sustainability |
7 |
2 |
5 |
35 |
32 |
27 |
|
Future generations |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
37 |
59 |
|
Liability |
8 |
1 |
7 |
8 |
28 |
56 |
|
Commons |
4 |
0 |
4 |
10 |
16 |
70 |
|
Water access |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
10 |
86 |
|
Water quality |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
10 |
87 |
|
Land access |
4 |
1 |
3 |
6 |
14 |
77 |
|
Land management |
6 |
3 |
3 |
12 |
16 |
67 |
|
Roads |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
95 |
|
Energy |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
14 |
84 |
|
Ecosystem damage |
7 |
0 |
7 |
18 |
24 |
52 |
|
Ecolabels |
2 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
9 |
82 |
|
Air pollution |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
95 |
|
Genetic resource access |
21 |
3 |
18 |
12 |
25 |
43 |
|
Genetic resource ownership |
15 |
2 |
13 |
20 |
22 |
44 |
|
Genetic resource benefit |
8 |
1 |
7 |
10 |
30 |
52 |
|
Genetic resource conservation |
11 |
4 |
7 |
14 |
34 |
41 |
|
Exotic species |
1 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
16 |
78 |
|
Natural resource management |
8 |
1 |
7 |
16 |
30 |
46 |
|
Fertilizers |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
12 |
82 |
|
Pesticides |
7 |
4 |
3 |
7 |
22 |
65 |
|
Herbicides |
1 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
5 |
91 |
|
ANIMAL ISSUES |
||||||
|
Animal capture |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
91 |
|
Animal husbandry |
11 |
3 |
8 |
1 |
24 |
65 |
|
Animal transport |
2 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
90 |
|
Animal killing |
5 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
87 |
|
Animal relations in work |
3 |
0 |
3 |
6 |
11 |
80 |
|
Long life is a value |
2 |
0 |
2 |
6 |
8 |
84 |
|
Animal protein revolution |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
9 |
85 |
|
Cross species disease |
1 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
13 |
79 |
|
Vaccines |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
94 |
|
Hormones in animal feed |
2 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
88 |
|
Religious views |
2 |
0 |
2 |
7 |
25 |
67 |
|
PERSONNEL ISSUES |
||||||
|
Personnel employment |
11 |
2 |
9 |
11 |
19 |
59 |
|
Personnel gender |
4 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
19 |
73 |
|
Personnel gifts |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
7 |
92 |
|
General behaviour |
9 |
2 |
7 |
15 |
25 |
52 |
Please send comments to Email < asianbioethics@yahoo.co.nz >.