Análisis de los valores asociados al Rugby

Introduction

Throughout the ages, meat has remained an ambiguous food product, giving rise to ambivalent feelings of appreciation and abhorrence.1 _{For instance,}

whereas eating meat marked for several centuries one’s privileged status within society, eschewing fl esh consumption constituted for others a means to spiritual elevation.2 _{It is interesting to note, however, that, across all}

human societies, food taboos possess the remarkable particularity of almost always involving substances of animal origin.3

An ancient example still fl ourishing today, and dating back thousands of years, is vegetarianism. The term vegetarianism applies indiscriminately to a wide range of dietary practices that avoid foods from animal sources with varying degrees of restriction. It covers a spectrum of diets that extend from “semivegetarianism,” or the avoidance of meat, particularly red meat, but not of fi sh, seafood, eggs, and dairy products, to “veganism,” which excludes the consumption of all animal fl esh and animal products. Between these two extremes, one fi nds vegetarians who do not eat meat, including fi sh and sea- food, but who consume eggs and dairy products (“lacto-ovo vegetarianism”), as well as vegetarians who avoid either eggs or dairy products in addition to meat, fi sh, and seafood (correspondingly “lacto-vegetarianism” and “ovo- vegetarianism”).4 _{Despite these differences, the common characteristic of all}

vegetarian diets is that they are plant-based, resting mainly, or exclusively, on the consumption of grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes, seeds, and nuts.5

Although vegetarian dietary practices now enjoy greater accessibil- ity through the establishment of a niche market for vegetarian food, and

although vegetarianism is becoming ever more prevalent in industrialized countries, surveys in the United Kingdom situate the proportion of vegetar- ians at approximately 5 percent of the population.6 _{In the United States}

and Canada, vegetarians constitute between 1 percent and 2.5 percent of the population.7 _{These fi gures are not considerable and justify looking at}

vegetarianism as a marginal diet.

Yet, as subsidiary as it may be, advances in the genetic engineering of foods might constitute a potential threat to the vegetarian diet. To be sure, as explained in Abraham’s chapter, the techniques of cell manipula- tion and transgene expression permit the transfer of genes between species, including between animals and plants. With the improvement of DNA technologies, the sequencing of ever more genomes, increasing knowledge in genomics and proteomics, the international expansion of bioprospecting, and the development of the ability to manipulate complex genetic traits through the advent of artifi cial chromosomes, the door might open up to the engineering of plants destined for human consumption with added DNA from animal origin.

For now, such likelihood belongs to an uncertain future. However, if such food products were to reach market, would they be acceptable to vegetarians? Or would the restrictions imposed by vegetarianism be violated by genetically modifi ed plants containing either one or many transgenes coming from animal sources? These are important questions because the rapid adoption of new commercially valuable transgenic plant breeds might hinder access to plant-based food products that satisfy the requirements of vegetarian dietary practices.

In the following pages, I will examine how adherence to vegetarian- ism affects the acceptance of otherwise suitable food products containing transgenes from animal origin. First, I will present a broad outline of the vegetarian ideology, which “provides both a critique of meat eating and the vision of a vegetarian world.”8 _{Second, arguing on the backdrop of the}

vegetarian worldview, I will circumscribe the extent of the menace posed to vegetarianism by genetically modifi ed plants containing added DNA from animal sources. In the course of my discussion, I will draw from both existing literature and data recently gathered from two focus groups on vegetarianism and genetically modifi ed foods.9

The Vegetarian Worldview

So far, vegetarianism has been described as a food behavior, a dietary preference. However, vegetarianism also refers to an ideology, that is, “a construct that contains . . . value associations and guides behavioural deci-

sions.”10 _{Indeed, eating is a complex social fact. For it brings into play an}

intermingled network of cultural, spiritual, political, material, and ethical considerations. As stated by socio-anthropologist Jean-Pierre Poulain: “On

ne se nourrit pas que de nutriments.”11 _{To be sure, food choices are not made}

on a strictly nutritional basis. Rather, foods are invested with symbols and refl ect social representations. Therefore, when we eat foods, we are also consuming meanings, that is, the products of pervasive and ongoing social construct processes.12 _{What is more, it is generally recognized that one’s}

choice of food products provides an effi cient way to express one’s identity, one’s own system of values and beliefs.13 _{Particularly, in a world wherein}

conventional references are increasingly confused, dietary practices act as powerful identity markers.14

According to sociologist Donna Maurer, “[f]or many people . . . being a vegetarian means more than following a set of dietary proscriptions—it is a way of life.”15 _{For these people, vegetarianism constitutes a means to express}

their identity as individuals, to affi rm their values and beliefs. As explained by psychologists Marjaana Lindeman and Minna Sirelius, “[A]lthough veg- etarianism on the surface may seem to purport a lifestyle constricted by nutritional guidelines; this normative aspect of a vegetarian lifestyle may not be dominant in vegetarianism. The restrictions seem hence not to be dictated by externally imposed norms, but can instead be viewed as freely chosen requirements for exercising one’s view of world, of doing something concrete for those issues . . . that one cherishes.”16

Vegetarians as a group do not form a homogenous community. Be that as it may, they share a fundamental concern about meat avoidance. What is more, their choice of a plant-based diet rests on a set of reasons that, although they are not shared universally among vegetarians, are nonetheless relatively fi xed. These reasons state the case for vegetarianism and, taken together, propose an ideology, or worldview, wherein vegetarians’ particular conception, or ideal, of what should be the relationships among humans, animals, nature, and society as a whole is defi ned.17

Maurer, who has studied vegetarianism as a social movement, identifi es three basic tenets of vegetarians’ system of values and beliefs: (i) compassion for all living beings, which includes social justice; (ii) promotion of health and vitality; and (iii) concern for the environment. As she underscores, “[a]dvocates and movement leaders sometimes debate the fi ner points of vegetarianism (for example, does honey harvesting cause bees to suffer?), but—because the ideology refl ects a long-standing interconnected system of beliefs and ideas to which longtime vegetarians and newcomers alike refer for justifi cation of their practices—they rarely contest its basic tenets.”18

Among the basic tenets of vegetarianism, the health benefi ts to be gained from a meatless diet are reported as the most often cited rationale

for espousing a vegetarian diet.19 _{Human studies on nutrition and disease}

indicate that “the elimination of meat from the diet is indeed one of the most powerful determinants of human health,”20 _{playing a role in the preven-}

tion of obesity, cardiovascular disease, stroke, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, colon cancer, breast cancer, etc.21 _{Generally speaking, individu-}

als who adopt a vegetarian diet on the basis of personal health concerns are referred to as “health vegetarians.”

“Ethical vegetarians,” on the other hand, embrace a plant-based diet because they hold the belief that eating meat is morally wrong.22 _{In their}

anthology devoted to vegetarianism, philosophers Kerry S. Walters and Lisa Portmess23 _{identify the argument from moral concern over animals as the}

foundation of ethical vegetarianism.24

Asserting the kinship of all living things, Pythagoras is believed to have offered the fi rst defence of vegetarianism based on this argument.25

His objections to eating meat were tied to his belief in the transmigration of souls. According to him, “the soul was immortal and could be endlessly transformed into other living creatures.”26 _{Consequently, “[t]o kill and eat}

any living creatures, whether they be bird, reptile or fi sh, was to murder one’s cousins and eat their fl esh.”27 _{For Pythagoras, “the consumption of a food}

animal may in fact be the devouring of a human soul.”28 _{Since Pythagoras,}

the argument from moral concern over animals has known many articula- tions.29 _{These either stem from the calling into question of our instrumental}

use and killing of animals for food or arise from a disquiet regarding our abusive treatment of them.

Having crossed centuries, the argument from moral concern over ani- mals is supplemented by contemporary defences of ethical vegetarianism that call attention to the ecological devastation caused, directly or indirectly, by factory farming and intensive agricultural practices. It is argued that “meat production depletes water supplies, forests, and fossil fuel energy and causes soil erosion,”30 _{thereby decreasing the ability of ecosystems to maintain and}

regenerate themselves. Raising animals for food is thus considered to be incompatible with environment sustainability.

Meat eating is also perceived as contributing to the perpetuation of global food inequalities, a line of reasoning that is related to the basic tenet of social justice as an expression of compassion for all living beings. Con- verting grain and soy to meat is regarded as a very ineffi cient and wasteful method of producing food because “an acre of cereals can produce fi ve times more protein than an acre devoted to meat production; legumes (peas, beans, lentils) can produce ten times more; leafy vegetables fi fteen times more.”31 _In

his book Food for a Future, Jon Wynne-Tyson states the argument as fol- lows: “About four-fi fths of the world’s agricultural land is used for feeding animals and only about one-fi fth for feeding man directly. . . . We read in

our newspapers about the starving and under-fed millions, and all the time we are feeding to meat-producing animals the very crops that could more than eradicate world food shortage; also, we are importing from starving nations large quantities of grain and other foods that are then fed to our animals instead of to the populations who produced them.”32

Under such a view, social justice would require eliminating the con- sumption of meat in order to meet the dietary needs and requirements of the entire human population.

The argument from social justice fi nds another expression in the con- nection that is made between ethical vegetarianism and feminism. As a “refl ection of patriarchal power structures that are inherently exploitative,” a causal relationship is established between the consumption of animal fl esh and the oppression of women.33

Except for this last argument, which appears to be restricted still to philosophical circles, empirical studies confi rm that, in addition to health, vegetarian dietary practices are adopted for all of the above-mentioned rea- sons: disquiet with the treatment of farm animals and the rejection of killing, a preoccupation with the protection of the environment, and an aspiration toward social justice.34

The opinions expressed by the participants in our two focus groups emphasized moral consideration for animals and environmental protection as their main basis for vegetarianism. To illustrate, consider the following statements:

For me, any of the foods that . . . are generated due to any form of cruelty [are] like a complete “no.”35

[I]t is a matter of conscience and dietary preference, in the sense that I just do not want to consume anything that has undergone hardship or torture, you know.36

So whether there was suffering involved or not, the very fact that I’m taking a life, where I could defi nitely . . . be avoiding that, is what I subscribe to.37

I have a defi nite preference for organic because part of my reason for being vegan is an environmental reason . . . 38

Some people mentioned that we’re at the point where we’ve screwed up things a lot, and to get to a point where we’re eating food in a sustainable manner, that leaves things the way they are, for the future generations . . . [we need] a large overhaul. To get a process of reversal, to get to a point where we are in a

state of sustainability. . . . [And sustainability relates directly to veganism or vegetarianism] a hundred percent, yes.39

In addition, some of the focus group participants insisted on the dis- connection between consumers and food sources. The unease generated by this perceived distance motivated their preference for plant-based foods that are produced locally, as illustrated by the following statement: “[W]e are losing our connection . . . with our food and the people who produce it.”40

Such an argument, however, does not support the case for vegetarianism in its imperative to abstain from meat consumption,41 _{for it is associated with a}

contemporary critique of food production as a whole, including both animal and plant-based products.

To be sure, profound mutations occurred within the food production system throughout the last 150 years. These transformations deeply altered our relation to foods, creating an increasing distance between consumers and foods.42 _{Notably, because urbanization removed food products from their}

rural production sites, it conferred to them a status of merchandise and blurred their deep-rootedness in the natural environment. The industrial- ization of food production also further severed the link between food and nature. Such an effect is exemplifi ed by the intensive breeding and keep- ing of animals for farming purposes, which contributed to the reifi cation of animals destined for human consumption by reducing them to raw material. Large-scale distribution, the development of a thriving food transformation industry, and the impact of food marketing strategies deserve to be men- tioned too as factors of disconnection between consumers and foods.43

In summary, many reasons substantiate the case for vegetarianism. From personal health benefi ts to global food inequalities, including moral concern over animals and environmental protection, the arguments put forward count as many constitutive elements of the vegetarian worldview. Expressing an ideal state of relationships between humans and their social and physical environment, vegetarians’ system of values and beliefs empha- size prudence, well-being, compassion, nonviolence, sharing, and respect as key guides for action. Through their dietary choices, vegetarians live in accordance with their view of world.

The likelihood, therefore, that access to food products that are appro- priate for vegetarians be limited through genetic engineering goes far beyond the logistics of procuring food and dietary preferences. For the effect of such constraint relates to the free pursuit of one’s self. In a liberal and democratic society, such a situation cannot be indifferent. Yet, what is the extent of the threat posed to vegetarianism by genetically modifi ed plants containing added DNA from animal sources?

The Threat to Vegetarianism

According to bioethicist Arthur Caplan, the debate on genetic engineering is closed. Speaking about genetically modifi ed animals, he made the follow- ing statement: “I don't have any problem engineering animals. Ethically, we've answered that.”44 _{Such a strong assertion, however, may be doubted}

because, as shown in Thompson’s chapter, not only does the controversy about the application in the agricultural setting of the techniques of cell manipulations and transgene expression raise concerns associated with the specifi c characteristics of the technology, but it also correlates with issues of food production that involve a refl ection on the ethics of technological progress. Thompson points out, as a matter of fact, that “agricultural biotech- nology has become caught up in several longstanding moral and political debates.” We are thus very far from any consensus on the acceptability of GM foods, and the debate continues.

In discussing whether plant-based food products with added DNA from animal origin threaten the vegetarian lifestyle, the above point is important to remember because participants in the focus groups tended to make their arguments not so much on the basis of the case for vegetarian- ism, but from the broader perspective of the controversy that still vividly surrounds genetic engineering of food products, invoking reasons such as respect for nature, the unnaturalness of genetic engineering, its unknown long-term consequences for the environment and human health, mistrust toward industry and government, and GM foods being an unacceptable “band-aid” solution to world hunger. These broader justifi cations, however, are relevant for our present purposes only to the extent that they actually fi t within the vegetarian worldview. What is more, in reaching a conclu- sion, their invocation does not spare the need to delineate the implications of the arguments supporting vegetarians’ choice of a plant-based diet with respect to genetically modifi ed plants containing added DNA from animal sources. Both sets of reasons must be dealt with.

I will begin with the argument from moral concern over animals. As a general rule, each use of animals—whether this is for research, compan- ionship, the production of food, entertainment, or sport—raises three basic moral questions. The fi rst one is whether this particular form of animal use is morally acceptable. If it is, the second question asks whether any limita- tions should be placed on this use. Finally, the third question relates to the standards of treatment of animals. In other words, it concerns the sort of treatment that should be accorded to animals in the context of this par- ticular use of animals.45 _{The fi rst two questions refer to a fi rst level of moral}

level of moral refl ection, that of the actual treatment of the animals used. Taken together, both levels of moral refl ection set a structure of analysis that envisages each use of animals as, fi rst, “a framework activity” together, if morally acceptable, with a set of standards of treatment.

In the debate over eating meat, the rationales put forward in favor of vegetarianism address both levels of moral refl ection. As indicated in the fi rst section, the contentions against the consumption of meat either stem from the calling into question of our instrumental use and killing of animals for food or arise from a disquiet regarding our abusive treatment of them. When considering the purport of the argument from moral concern over animals with respect to genetic engineering, the level upon which moral refl ection is directed must be taken into account.

Broadly stated, at the fi rst level of moral refl ection, opposition to meat rests on the contention that it is morally wrong to treat animals as resources to be exploited for humans’ benefi t or, in other words, as means to achieve our ends. Animals are believed to possess moral status,46 _{and their raising}

and killing for the production of food is viewed as a violation of their most basic interests in life and the avoidance of suffering. Animal farming there- fore is looked upon as disregarding the moral status of animals. Set within the context of the use of cell manipulations and transgene expression tech-