Abstract
In the voluminous literature on the subject of bGH we have yet to find an attempt to frame the issue in specifically moral terms or to address systematically its ethical implications. I argue that there are two moral objections to the technology: its treatment of animals, and its dislocating effects on farmers. There are agricultural biotechnologies that deserve funding and support. bGH is not one of them.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Additional information
Gary Comstock is Associate Professor of Philosophy and a member of the Religious Studies Program at Iowa State University. He is currently a Center Associate with the Western Rural Development Center at Oregon State University, writing a book on the ethical dimensions of agricultural biotechnology. He is the author of several articles in the philosophy of religion, and the editor ofIs There a Moral Obligation to Save the Family Farm? (ISU Press, 1987). He is married to Karen Werner Comstock and they have two children, Krista Marie and Benjamin Dhruva.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Comstock, G. The case against bGH. Agric Hum Values 5, 36–52 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02217658
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02217658