Sean Ruhlman
Ms. Rooney
ENC-1101
19 November, 2013

Ethical Relativism

At what point do we need to refocus our priorities as a civilization? Ethical relativism can best be understood by focusing on the juxtaposition of the benefits of biotechnological advancements in the food industry with the synergetic natural relationship of all living organisms. The argument supporting our technologically enhanced farming is often overlooked by the idealists of our society vying for the end of world hunger. Is it realistic to believe that without these processed foods which make up over two thirds of the world’s diet; the population would be remotely similar in size to that of a population using non-biologically engineered or enhanced foods? Has our society grown to such magnitudes merely as a result of our ability to produce food as quickly and efficiently as we currently do? At what point will humanity’s demand, exceed the Earth’s carrying capacity? This then raises the question of morality. Is it ethically right to turn our backs and deny a portion of our ever-growing population the ability to eat knowing we are beginning to challenge global sustainability? Arguably, it is reasonable to assume that if you were to take away our overly processed, biologically re-engineered foods in order to reach equilibrium, there would be a proportionate loss of human life. This however, may be the only way to ensure humanity’s survival. This is where ethical relativity has to be decided as a society. Is it more morally right to knowingly cause damage to our civilization and future generations in exchange for the ability to sustain life in the present? Or do we need to focus on our future and allow for what some may satirize as population control in order to pursue what Mother Nature has provided with her billion year track record?
Food Inc., a documentary whose goal was to unveil the horrors of our present food industry, visually depicted the spectrum from the living conditions of the livestock, to the corruption that has leaked into our government. The documentary exposed the corners which are cut when preparing our food and how it is possible to produce the amount of livestock that is currently produced annually in America. The alarming use of genetically enhanced chickens grown to twice the size of a natural chicken and can be produced in half the time are common place. This process does not require any labeling disclaimers or notices. This begins to shed light on the greed and corruption that has made its way into our government agencies. Many of the FDA’s leaders can be traced back to an executive position in one of the corporate food giants. Favoritism, capitalism and corporate bias have found their way into the relaxing or elimination of principles geared to the protection of the consumer or end user. Realizing the corruption of standards helps us to understand what now, is a broken system. The challenge now is to become proactive in finding a means to find balance without causing severe global economic impact. While this task appears somewhat daunting, there is a company which is showing promise in finding the proper balance.

Polyface is one of the first farms of its kind established to utilize the naturally occurring symbiotic relationships of wildlife to efficiently produce food in an early chemically free, untouched environment. Michael Pollen, author of Omnivore’s Dilema, describes Polyface as an organism in itself, “no fragment less essential than its counterpart” (Pollen 1). In nature there is no waste, everything is cycled and recycled.
Joel Salatin, the creator of Polyface, decided to directly mirror Mother Nature’s grand design and create a highly efficient farm model to produce the maximum, perpetually sustainable food source without challenging the limits of the eco-systems carting capacity. An example of this eco-system design is the “Egg Mobile”, a mobile chicken coup that allows for hens to eat the highly nutritious insect larva from the manure left by the grazing cows, only to leave their own highly nitrogenous enriched feces to nourish the grass once again that feeds the cows. This simple illustration of innovative thinking has the potential to sufficiently supply unprocessed foods in far greater quantities and a higher quality in a nutrition source. However, it may be unable to replicate the speed at which our current food industry operates at may be overly optimistic.
The largest and most vilified industrial complex of genetically engineered and enhanced foods in the United States is Monsanto. Their reputation for secrecy, non-transparency, seed licensing, bullying and goals to monopolize global food production is well deserved. The arrogance of believing fifty years of scientific research can somehow improve upon a couple of billion years of natural selection and the ecological footprint needed for

carrying capacity can be subverted is absurd. The ethical relativism is pronounced when evaluating the myopic parallaxes of Monsanto’s global geo-political reach. “We feed the world” is the Monsanto mantra. Those four words and the money behind them sway the governments of the global community to over tax the sensitive eco-systems and exceed the carrying capacity within those systems.
The answer lies in finding balance the combination of science and nature. While it is noble to hope that we can completely stop the use of biologically engineered or enhanced fruit, vegetables, livestock and more; it simply isn’t realistic. However, those biologically engineered or enhanced foods cannot be allowed to exceed the carrying capacity within the eco systems. Through innovation and partnering with Mother Nature, such as Polyface farm concept we very well could increase the quantity and moreover the nutritional quality of foods while slowing the use of unnatural foods in our everyday diet. This wouldn’t solve all of our food industry problems. Possibly the most necessary change needed, is for humanity to demand transparency from large food producers and require more stringent rules and regulations on bio-engineered or genetic make-up changes. Just as warning labels were added to cigarettes in the late 1970’s, similar labeling needs to be required on the re-engineered foods and/or pesticides used on them. We must focus our attention on the bureaucratic agencies such as the FDA, USDA and EPA to have our best interest mandated and not subverted by moral ambiguity and ethical relativism. Innovation, not formulation is the key to our survival.

Works Cited
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New
York: Penguin, 2006. Print.
Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Movie One, 2008.