Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics最新文献

"Killing in the Name of 3R?" The Ethics of Death in Animal Research.

IF 2.2 4区哲学

Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-02 DOI: 10.1007/s10806-024-09936-y

Kirsten Persson, Christian Rodriguez Perez, Edwin Louis-Maerten, Nico Müller, David Shaw

{"title":"\"Killing in the Name of 3R?\" The Ethics of Death in Animal Research.","authors":"Kirsten Persson, Christian Rodriguez Perez, Edwin Louis-Maerten, Nico Müller, David Shaw","doi":"10.1007/s10806-024-09936-y","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10806-024-09936-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Changing relationships with nonhuman animals have led to important modifications in animal welfare legislations, including the protection of animal life. However, animal research regulations are largely based on welfarist assumptions, neglecting the idea that death can constitute a harm to animals. In this article, four different cases of killing animals in research contexts are identified and discussed against the background of philosophical, societal, and scientific-practical discourses: 1. Animals killed during experimentation, 2. Animals killed before research, 3. \"Surplus\" animals and 4. \"Leftover\" animals. The scientific community and, accordingly, animal research regulations such as the internationally acknowledged framework 3R (\"Replace\", \"Reduce\", \"Refine\") tend to aim at the reduction of \"surplus\" and, to some extent, \"leftover\" animals, whereas the first two classes are rather neglected. However, the perspective that animal death matters morally is supported by both societal moral intuitions and certain theoretical accounts in animal ethics. Therefore, we suggest the implementation of the 3Rs in regulations, so that they: 1. Make their underlying philosophical position transparent; 2. Are based on a weighing account of animal death; 3. Are applicable to procedures on living and dead animals; 4. Apply the \"reduction\" principle to procedures on dead animals; 5. Entail that methods using (parts of) dead animals need to be replaced by animal free methods, if possible; 6. Do not suggest replacing research on living animals by research on killed animals; 7. Include all kinds of animals, depending on the respective harm of death; 8. Are applied to the broader context of experimentation, including breeding and the fate of the animals after the experiment.</p>","PeriodicalId":50258,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics","volume":"38 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11611953/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142781584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Societal Acceptability of Insect-Based Livestock Feed: A Qualitative Study from Europe 以昆虫为基础的牲畜饲料的社会可接受性:来自欧洲的定性研究

4区哲学

Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics Pub Date : 2023-11-04 DOI: 10.1007/s10806-023-09917-7

Ingrid Bunker, Jana Zscheischler

{"title":"Societal Acceptability of Insect-Based Livestock Feed: A Qualitative Study from Europe","authors":"Ingrid Bunker, Jana Zscheischler","doi":"10.1007/s10806-023-09917-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-023-09917-7","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Against the background of high demand for protein-rich feed in the EU and the environmental degradation associated with intensive livestock farming, insect-based feed is discussed as a potential sustainable alternative to conventional feed. However, the establishment of such an innovation depends not only upon technical and economic feasibility, but also on social factors impacting acceptability. The aim of this paper was to determine the acceptability of different social actor groups towards the use of insects as livestock feed, and to gain insights into value-based arguments leading to positive or negative attitudes and perceived benefits and risks. By means of qualitative content analysis, we analysed responses of an EU public consultation process linked to the authorization of insect protein in pig and poultry feed. We found a broad range of value-based arguments that influence the complex judgement process of acceptability that have been neglected in prior quantitative surveys. In particular, our results bring forward more critical voices, such as animal welfare concerns and scepticism that insect-based feed can contribute to a more sustainable livestock system. Based on these findings, we discuss whether insects as feed are a viable contribution to a sustainability-oriented transformation of the agri-food system. We conclude that under certain conditions (when raised on low-value organic side streams such as manure) insect-based livestock feed may contribute to incremental sustainability improvements. Overall, however, the innovation has limitations, not only in terms of regulatory conditions but especially with regard to ethical concerns.","PeriodicalId":50258,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135774209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

A Kantian Approach to the Moral Considerability of Non-human Nature 康德对非人性道德可考虑性的探讨

4区哲学

Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics Pub Date : 2023-10-30 DOI: 10.1007/s10806-023-09918-6

Toby Svoboda

引用次数: 0

Right to Food 食物权

4区哲学

Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics Pub Date : 2023-10-25 DOI: 10.1007/s10806-023-09916-8

Hilal Elver

引用次数: 0

Politically Branding India’s “First Fully Organic State”: Re-Signification of Traditional Practices and Markets in Organic Agriculture 印度“第一个完全有机国家”的政治烙印:有机农业传统实践和市场的重新意义

4区哲学

Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics Pub Date : 2023-09-21 DOI: 10.1007/s10806-023-09915-9

Suchismita Das

引用次数: 0

Climate Injustice in a More-Than-Human World 一个超越人类的世界中的气候不公正

IF 1.8 4区哲学

Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI: 10.1007/s10806-023-09914-w

Alfonso Donoso

引用次数: 0

Strategies for Increasing Participation of Diverse Consumers in a Community Seafood Program 提高不同消费者参与社区海鲜项目的策略

IF 1.8 4区哲学

Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI: 10.1007/s10806-023-09912-y

Talia Young, G. Cumming, Ellie Kerns, Kristin Hunter-Thomson, Harmony Lu, Tamara Manik-Perlman, Cassandra Manotham, Tasha Palacio, Narry Veang, Wenxin Weng, Feini Yin, C. Cuite

引用次数: 0

An assessment of 'Inclusive' Business Models: Vehicles for Development, or Neo-Colonial Practices? “包容性”商业模式的评估:发展工具还是新殖民实践?

IF 1.8 4区哲学

Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics Pub Date : 2023-07-20 DOI: 10.1007/s10806-023-09911-z

E. Mangnus

引用次数: 0

Connecting the Concepts of Frugality and Inclusion to Appraise Business Practices in Systems of Food Provisioning: A Kenyan Case Study 连接节俭和包容的概念，以评估食品供应系统中的商业实践:肯尼亚案例研究

IF 1.8 4区哲学

Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics Pub Date : 2023-07-10 DOI: 10.1007/s10806-023-09913-x

S. Vellema, G. Schouten, P. Knorringa

引用次数: 0

Intra-Acting Food Citizenship in Community-Supported Agriculture in Finland 芬兰社区支持农业的内部食品公民身份