FacilitatorDate:
Farm subsidies provide a strategic approach of addressing the challenge of obesity in America. Some government policies in America allow production of corn in surplus to cater for the increased demand. However, most of the Americans do not take enough exercise to cater for over 50% increase in calories from cheap corn (Wilson, 2008). Obesity increased due to this factor hence production of farm subsidies provides an effective strategy of dealing because these foods have low calorie. By providing fewer calories to the body than the corn do, the subsidies undoubtedly provide the best food for the Americans in an age when obesity is rampant. However, ethical practices need to be observed when adopting this strategy to avoid a situation where the production of the subsidies clashes with the interests of the public.
The first ethical practice is the observation of the farm bill which most of the people ignore. The farm bill protects the people from falling into the quagmire of overproduction. The case of overproduction in corn appeared because of people’s lack of attention to the farm bill (Wilson, 2008). The American government legalised production of the cheap corn in large quantities without considering the implication of the practice. This phenomenon soon became an issue as most Americans started feeding on found high calorie-rich products (Michael, 2012). According to Wilson (2008), the Americans’ consumption of the corn increased rampantly in the period between the 1970s. This resulted to increased incidence of obesity among the American generation. In order to effectively deal with the menace, people must observe the farm bill which advocates for production in farm products in reasonable quantities. Arguments raised to defend overproduction based on the food bill must not distract the efforts of the people to regulate production. The food bill requires that production must present quantities for both satisfaction and surplus. This perspective needs to be adopted with a clean heart in order to build a healthy generation in the future.
Wilson (2008) infers that consumers must arise and claim responsibility of their own consumption in order to support the idea of dealing with the subsidies. Being responsible consumers implies that individuals should have strategies for regulating the consumption of the subsidies. This highlights production subsequently falls within the control of consumers. When consumers can control their own consumption, production can regulate itself to confirm to the population’s demand. The society should also undertake self-correction mechanisms so that whenever one of the members goes against the common rule of consumption, it can adjust them back to the rule.
Apart from the ethical provisions, the society must have consumer-based policies in order to counter any practices that the American people may engage in. The responsibility policy and consumptive production policies deem effective in dealing with the consumption and overproduction problems in America (Wilson, 2008). Corn production did not face any policies that would ensure that people only produced and consumed only the desired quantities. Surprisingly, the government supported the production of cheap corn in large quantities. Overproduction soon downed on the people hence result to severe cases of obesity within the population. This means that consumer-based policies must come in fork to regulate the production of the subsidies. In such a situation, overproduction would not threaten the people hence the consumption behaviour of people would stabilize.
According to Gabriele (2003), the Belmont principles emphasize the concepts formulated by the National Commission for protection of Human subjects in Research in order to regulate the principles applied towards people in the process of research. The basic Belmont principles include respect to persons, beneficence, justice to persons involved, informed consent, information, assessment of risks and benefits, and proper selection of subjects in research (Gabriele, 2003). The origin of the Belmont principles trace root to unethical behaviour carried out by researchers in the process of duty execution and delivery. Most of the researchers conducted their research by interrogated them, and even involved them in the research directly without their consent. The benefits accrual to the involved parties never trickled down to them. Passage of the National Research Act into law paved way for necessary intervention that bore the Belmont principles.
Beecher gives the basis upon which the Belmont principles came into force by analysing the scandals that led to the formation of the principles among the American people. Initially, the scholar asserts that many people were deprived of their benefits. Gabriele (2003) records that the basic requirement of the Belmont principles states that people must experience no harm during the research yet the benefits they acquire must maximize on the returns. However, in the Tuskegee study, participants got substantially low returns, which triggered the formulation of Belmont principles. In the Tuskegee study, notable effects presented among the people who felt coerced by the study. Furthermore, most participants argued that they had no consent to engage in such sensitive studies and that their boundaries were not effectively stated. The Belmont principles require that the consent of the people should prevail. Informed consent means that the person involved in any scientific study knows what the researcher expects from them and the boundaries they work in. Moreover, the rights and duties of the persons in the research must never conflict so that the person works while knowing what binds them.
According to Gabriele (2003), one of the greatest conflicts, that the Belmont principles resolves appeared when the researchers reportedly lose respect for the persons involved in researches. The researchers treated people as if they were obliged to contribute to the research. In this respect, many people challenged the move in court on grounds of infringement of their freedom and privileges. They also claimed that they received no protection during the researches, evident in the Beecher study. The Belmont principles however solved the problem by advocating for the human elements in research to demand respect in two ways. First, the people must deem autonomous in the whole research and second, they must get ample protection.
The Belmont principles and the IRB system protect the human subjects effectively through a series of provisions that regulate the behaviour of researchers and how people react to the human elements (Gabriele, 2003). Before the enactment of the provision, researchers did not observed ethical standards when handling human. However, due to the pronounced effects of these principles on researchers, and the huge responsibility they task them with, efforts emerged from organizations like the Act up in order to push against the principles. These efforts thwarted when the implementation of the policies got the backing of the law in most of countries like India and Uganda. However, the Belmont principles still have a considerable effect on research procedures.
References
Gabriele, E. F. (2003). The Belmont ethos: The meaning of the Belmont principles for human subject protections. Journal of Research Administration, 34(2), 19-24. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216599079?accountid=45049
Wilson, C. (2008, May 23). Congress overrides bush veto to enact farm bill: The five-year measure funds farm subsidies, food stamps and conservation. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/465077828?accountid=45049
Michael, P. (2012). We are what we eat. Center for Ecoliteracy. Retrieved from http://www.ecoliteracy.org/essays/we-are-what-we-eat
