InkLinks
Olive Oil and the Biosphere:
Responses to Paul Thompson

In MHR’s last issue Paul Thompson argued that “bioethics” properly involves much more than “medical ethics.” (“Agriculture and Food Issues in the Bioethics Spectrum,” Spring 2004). The essay elicited a number of responses–in every case, enthusiastic agreement and expansion of his points.

InkLinks is a forum for our readers. Let us know what you think.

—JA

A Science Professor:
MSU Published Global Bioethics, Then Forgot It

It was with great pleasure that I read the opening sentence of Professor Thompson’s article. His mention of Van Rensselaer Potter coining the term “bioethics” in 1970 is my focus here.

I applaud the recognition given to Potter. He is too little recognized for the significance of his philosophy regarding acceptable human survival via a system of medical and environmental priorities. Dr. Thompson correctly indicated how “bioethics” had been appropriated by the medical profession to the exclusion of the ecology-environmental community. It is to this feature that I would like to call attention in Potter’s 1988 book, Global Bioethics: Building on the Leopold Legacy, published by our MSU press.

In Global Bioethics, Potter is clear in his concern about what has happened to his idea: “With the focus on medical options, the fact that bioethics had been proposed to combine human values with ecological facts was forgotten…the ethics of how far to exercise technological options in the exploitation of the environment” was ignored (pp. 1-2).

Potter was brought here to MSU for a seminar on bioethics in 1995 by his ex-student and friend Dr. James Trosko, MSU Professor of Pediatrics and Human Development. It was a pleasure for me to talk with the man whose ideas were so significant to the general education science classes I taught. His ideas were instrumental in leading students to the realization that there is an ethical and moral aspect to a scientific understanding of nature. V.R. Potter died at age 90 in 2003.

Other comments in the 2004 Spring MHR indicate that “bioethics” as envisioned by Potter is acknowledged by the MSU agricultural community. But much remains yet to be done regarding the teaching of his “bioethics” to the largest group at MSU: the non-science student. The availability and reasonable cost of his paperback Global Bioethics could greatly expand student awareness of the importance of their decisions regarding acceptable human survival - a feature especially important in today’s political climate where science is being manipulated for political agendas. Again, Potter addresses this concern well:

“Global bioethics is proposed as a secular program of evolving a morality that calls for decisions in health care and in the preservation of the natural environment. It is a morality of responsibility…the natural laws governing the biosphere - indeed, the universe- are not going to change according to the wishes of individuals, governments, or religious preferences”(pp. 152-153).

If a major role for a university is to expose its students, faculty, and staff to challenging ideas, then Global Bioethics by Potter should be utilized to a greater extent than is presently the case at MSU. The Spring 2004 Medical Humanities Report is to be congratulated as an early step in this matter.

Ted Lopushinsky
Integrative Studies and General Science
Michigan State University

A Dietitian:
Where Would the Olive Oil Come From?

Professor Thompson pointed out that agricultural issues are public health issues as well, through their impact on nutrition on the one hand and on rural society on the other. Four months later the problems are becoming still more intense, as the Department of Agriculture reviews its food guidance and food pyramid. It is increasingly difficult for any of us to decide what to eat, as we weigh considerations of health, pleasure, and convenience (the latter usually being the decisive factor). Some researchers now argue that everyone should consume a Mediterranean Diet (JAMA, September 22/29, 2004). But where are Americans going to find the olive oil, which is a mainstay of this diet? It would take 20-25 years to produce the olive groves needed, and doing so would make major changes in American agriculture. Until then, Americans could deplete the olive oil production of the entire world. We would probably also gain weight, consuming more calories without increasing our physical activity (the usual pattern when Americans take up a new diet style).

Fruits and vegetables are another example of good nutritional advice with unforeseen effects. The consumption of local produce could promote sustainable agriculture. Instead, though, the public rarely finds local produce in its groceries. Many people have no idea what is locally grown, or even what is in season. (Do bananas grow in Michigan? Are oranges harvested in August?)

Nutritional science seems to be following the model of medicine rather than agriculture and home economics of its roots. Recent nutrition conferences have titles like “Food as Medication” (take a little broccoli for your cancer, or yogurt for your probiotics). The billion-dollar “nutriceutical” industry illustrates how little confidence some feel in our food supply. Land grant universities have developed “Functional Foods” concentrations within nutrition and food science departments, to deal with food’s medicinal properties.

Where does this leave agriculture? Michael Jacobson, executive director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, believes that “Congress should move the whole process [of developing dietary guidelines] to the National Academies of Science. It would … help de-politicize” the activity. But he also believes that food interests are so powerful that the move would be blocked. Furthermore, as the so-called ‘War on Obesity’ heats up, our rural communities seem inordinately vulnerable–the people are usually heavier than their urban counterparts, and the economy is reliant on the farming of products which are targets for reduction, like dairy, meat products, and local produce.

What is a dietitian to do with so many conflicting sciences, cultures, and recommendations? Maybe what the public is doing–ignore it all!

Mary Noel
Family Practice
Michigan State University

A Physician:
Public Health Ethics is Another Leg for the Milking Stool

Professor Thompson is to be commended for his summary as he has opened up an important dimension of ethics that has been long-neglected. The point of his article is to raise questions about food issues and place them within the agenda of mainstream bioethics. I would urge the bioethics community to heed Professor Thompson’s challenge, and point out that this is an opportunity for the integration of ethical reflection from a variety of domains. Many of the issues in nutrition have both clinical and public health implications, and the integration of bioethics and public health ethics is certainly needed to address them. I could not agree more when he says the time may be ripe for a more extended conversation between agricultural and medical ethics, and I would argue that additional legs to his milking stool would be public health ethics and environmental ethics. If, as some have argued, the individualistic focus of contemporary bioethics is a barrier to understanding more complex questions of public health, then this integration is essential. I look forward to the ongoing discourse.

Ross Upshur
University of Toronto