Over the past century, animal agriculture in the United States has transformed from a system of small, family farms to a largely industrialized model-often known as 'industrial farm animal production' (IFAP). This model has successfully produced a large supply of cheap meat, eggs and dairy products, but at significant costs to animal welfare, the environment, the risk of zoonotic disease, the economic and social health of rural communities, and overall food abundance. Over the past 40 years, numerous critiques of IFAP have been published, for both academic and non-academic audiences, mostly focusing on our obligations to animals.Here we offer a comprehensive critique of IFAP, focusing not only on our obligations to animals, but also important environmental, social, economic, and public health concerns. Our cumulative argument proceeds in five steps: (1) we briefly review the structure and key characteristics of IFAP; (2) we review the adverse effects of IFAP; (3) we review the historical development and positive rationale for IFAP; (4) we summarize previous moral critiques of IFAP, as well as defenses of it; and (5) we offer a moral critique of IFAP based on the common morality, and in particular on a principle of nonmaleficence, which we take to be the least controversial argument.

No abstract

Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are an issue of significant and growing importance to the field of public health. The prevalence of ASDs is rising, and these disorders significantly impact the quality of life of affected persons and their families. Though the etiology of ASDs has long been poorly understood, in recent years, studies are revealing genetic and environmental risk information about ASDs, with much more risk information expected to follow from scientific studies currently underway. The availability of this risk information raises questions about whether and how it should be communicated to individuals, families, and the public at large. One ethical issue of particular concern with ASD risk communication is the possibility that it may cause inadvertent harm to risk message recipients. Here we review the emerging picture of ASD risk, discuss some ways in which it may lead to inadvertent harm, and suggest some future directions for risk communication research and practice that might help to address this issue.

No abstract

Autism spectrum disorders are an issue of increasing public health significance. The incidence of autism spectrum disorders has been increasing in recent years, and they are associated with significant personal and financial impacts for affected persons and their families. In recent years, a large number of scientific studies have been undertaken, which investigate genetic and environmental risk factors for autism, with more studies underway. At present, much remains unknown regarding autism spectrum disorder risk factors, but the emerging picture of causation is in many cases complex, with multiple genes and gene-environment interactions being at play. The complexity and uncertainty surrounding autism spectrum disorder risk factors raise a number of questions regarding the ethical considerations that should be taken into account when undertaking autism spectrum disorder risk communication. At present, however, little has been written regarding autism spectrum disorder risk communication and ethics. This article summarizes the findings of a recent conference investigating ethical considerations and policy recommendations in autism spectrum disorder risk communication, which to the authors' knowledge is the first of its kind. Here, the authors discuss a number of issues, including uncertainty; comprehension; inadvertent harm; justice; and the appropriate roles of clinicians, scientists, and the media in autism spectrum disorder risk communication.