The Case against bGH

Agriculture and Human Values 5 (3):36-52 (1988)
In the voluminous literature on the subject of bovine growth hormone (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.
Keywords agricultural ethics  biotechnology ethics  animal rights  justice  dislocating effects  economic justice  agricultural economics
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 1998
ISBN(s) 1543-4044
DOI 10.1007/BF02217658
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Introduction.Gary Comstock - 1991 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 4 (2):101-107.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Truth at the Last--A Case of Obstructed Death?R. Higgs - 1982 - Journal of Medical Ethics 8 (1):48-50.
PVS and the Terri Schiavo Case.Gary Fuller - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):299-303.
Abortion, Property, and Liberty.William Simkulet - 2016 - The Journal of Ethics 20 (4):373-383.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
48 ( #124,803 of 2,237,262 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #93,591 of 2,237,262 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature