The ethics of big data in big agriculture

Abstract

This paper examines the ethics of big data in agriculture, focusing on the power asymmetry between farmers and large agribusinesses like Monsanto. Following the recent purchase of Climate Corp., Monsanto is currently the most prominent biotech agribusiness to buy into big data. With wireless sensors on tractors monitoring or dictating every decision a farmer makes, Monsanto can now aggregate large quantities of previously proprietary farming data, enabling a privileged position with unique insights on a field-by-field basis into a third or more of the US farmland. This power asymmetry may be rebalanced through open-sourced data, and publicly-funded data analytic tools which rival Climate Corp. in complexity and innovation for use in the public domain.

Agriculture 4.0: Broadening Responsible Innovation in an Era of Smart Farming

“…Rose et al (2018a) found evidence that the requirement to use emergent technologies are mismatched with the expectations of farmers about what farming is. Wolf and Wood (1997) argued that a focus on precision farming legitimates a narrative of chemical-based agriculture, and Wolfert et al (2017) suggested that the emphasis on big data could further move decisionmaking power from the farmers into the hands of private companies who have control over such data (see also Carbonell, 2016). In terms of wider impacts on society, the use of emergent technologies may not chime with societal expectations of sustainable food production.…”

Agricultural Robotics: The Future of Robotic Agriculture

“…There are ethical issues concerning the ownership of data, similar to other technological domains where a small number of companies own or control the majority of the information and potentially the infrastructure. In a similar fashion, a power asymmetry already exists between farmers and large agribusinesses [18], Smart Farming faces two extreme future scenarios: 1) closed proprietary systems where the farmer is part of a highly integrated supply chain, or 2) open systems in which all stakeholders are flexible in choosing technologies and business partners [19]. Therefore, developments such as open-source data and publicly-funded data collection networks should be considered.…”

Managing Socio-Ethical Challenges in the Development of Smart Farming: From a Fragmented to a Comprehensive Approach for Responsible Research and Innovation

“…A range of sensors are used to collect these data to monitor animals, soil, water, and plants (Eastwood et al 2012;Jago et al 2013;Scholten et al 2013). The data are used to interpret the past and predict the future to ensure more timely or accurate decision making both on-farm and in the supply chain (Carbonell 2016;Wolfert et al 2017), where the accumulation of data from different farms also enables so-called Big Data analysis (Bronson and Knezevic 2016). Scientists and policymakers are increasingly looking to smart farming as a technological solution to address societal concerns around farming, including provenance and food traceability (Dawkins 2017), animal welfare in livestock industries (Yeates 2017), and the environmental impact of different farming practices (Busse et al 2015;Wolfert et al 2017;Carolan 2016).…”

“…Despite opportunities associated with smart farming in terms of improved productivity and positive environmental outcomes through more precise input use (Kaloxylos et al 2012;Wolfert et al 2017), smart farming potentially entails negative outcomes. Most smart farming literature focuses on the potential for improving agricultural practices and productivity (Wathes et al 2008;Rutten et al 2013), but some scholars have investigated the socio-ethical implications (Millar 2000;Wolf and Wood 1997;Carbonell 2016;Driessen and Heutinck 2015). These socio-ethical challenges in smart farming have been recognised at the level of the farm, the wider farming community, and society (Bos and Munnichs 2016).…”