Stefan Aerts

Which sustainability suits you

When talking about ‘sustainability’ in theory, people often refer to the triple P-concept, where People, Planet and Profit are three pillars of equal value. In practice, these three terms are very often used against each other to prove one’s right, depending on one’s worldview. If one is looking to sustainable solutions for different problems, it is very important to understand how others see the world and evaluate things. One way to analyze different worldviews is by dividing them by focusing either on their ontological status (reductionism versus holism) or on the epistemological status (subjective versus objective). Combining these two gives us four different worldviews: personal-egocentric (subjective-reductionist), culturalsocial (subjective-holistic), ecological (objective-holistic) and technical (objective-reductionist). For each of those four worldviews, a 3P-ranking can be made. In a personal-egocentric worldview, Profit is the main goal because it pleases the People. Planet is often used within the limits of promoting the other P’s, as becomes illustrative in the green-washing by companies. In a cultural-social worldview, People as individuals, as a group or as a species are the major concern, followed by Planet as a necessary biotope for man. Profit is used to make sure that both Planet and People are protected. In an ecological worldview, the Planet as ecosystem is the most important thing, which can only be saved by People and where Profit is the trigger to let People behave in a Planet-saving way. In a technical worldview, mostly People, Planet and Profit are considered as independent entities. This implies that different people have different desires and act different in the same circumstances in order to reach their individual ‘sustainable’ solution.

An ethical argument for vigilant prevention

In general, prevention is considered an epidemiologically good strategy because it decreases the likelihood of animal disease outbreaks (and thus epidemics), mainly by hindering the infectious agent spread and thereby lowering the number of diseased animals and the economical losses. Similarly, surveillance, i.e. monitoring and early detection of diseased animals, is generally considered as an epidemiologically good strategy because it increases the probability of controlling the outbreak before it reaches an epidemic scale. Both prevention and surveillance are proactive rather than reactive approaches, but there seems to be no clear a priori advantage of prevention over surveillance or vice versa. Nonetheless, some suggest that prevention offers better disease control results than surveillance and thus that both can be mutually exclusive. This discussion paper challenges this assumption and argues that both approaches should be seen as complimentary measures rather than opposing actions. A blended strategy that builds upon synergies between the prevention and surveillance approaches, will offer a stronger defense against epidemics than a single approach. The specific combination of prevention and surveillance measures depends on a series of factors, of which availability of technological innovations and economic benefits can be one. To bridge the suggested dichotomy between prevention and surveillance, we use a set of ethical arguments comprised of three principles: the ‘right-to-know’, the ‘right-not-to-know’, and the ‘duty-to-know’. For important animal diseases and with the emergence of advanced diagnostics/ monitoring technologies, the balance between these three principles shifts away from the right not to know towards a duty to know. This set of principles thus demonstrates the importance of surveillance within the overall strategy. We argue that, in a combined disease control strategy, prevention must be the most important component, which we would therefore term a ‘vigilant prevention strategy’.

Feed efficiencies in animal production: a non-numerical analysis

More and more, animal production is questioned, not only by animal welfare organizations or vegans, but also in the context of climate change. Some even say that animals are the number one greenhouse gas emitters, not only directly (e.g. ruminants), but also indirectly by land use change, especially in South America. Others say that animals are a very inefficient way of food production, since feed conversion always means a certain loss. From a food production point of view, animal production can be divided into three groups. The first one is the group of extensive grazers. Since only a small percentage of the land surface is arable land, herbivores (especially ruminants) are the only way to produce on – from an anthropocentric point of view – ‘useless’ grounds. Also, one billion poor people in those regions are depending on animals for food, manure, draught or as ‘living bank’ in those harsh conditions. Animals are thus necessary to survive and everything produced by them can be seen as a net gain, increasing the land use efficiency. Secondly, animals can be used as converters of crop residues, especially meals from vegetable oil production for human consumption, chemistry or biofuels. Animals, especially ruminants, are very efficient in recycling energy and proteins which are not digestible or wanted as food by humans (or other animals). Probably, second generation biofuels shall replace at least for some part the use of animals as converters, depending on economics or policy. To balance the animals’ diet, also grains are needed to make sure the animals stay healthy. If you look at feed efficiency in this way, efficiency ratios for different animal species differ from the traditional feed conversion and for some species animal production even means an efficiency gain. The third group is the surplus group. Those animals are produced not because they use ‘useless’ land or energy and proteins, but because some people are wealthy enough to feed them with edible products. Although some of them have the best feed conversion ratios, this group of (mostly monogastric) animals produces animal products in an inefficient way from a human-animal-competition or ecological point of view. Only this group of animals could be considered as ethically problematic. It will become a pressing issue because of the increasing demand from upcoming economies for animal luxury products.