Frans Brom

Animal welfare policy presents complex ethical challenges, requiring the careful balancing of diverse perspectives on issues such as animal housing, transport, and slaughter. As a policy domain shaped by societal pluralism, it demands reasoned debate and informed decision-making. Ethicists contribute to these discussions in different ways, assuming distinct professional roles in public policy-making. Building on Roger Pielke’s _The Honest Broker_ (The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics, Cambridge University Press, 2007), four roles for ethicists are developed: _The Pure Philosopher_, who develops ethical theory without direct policy engagement; _The Ethics Advocate_, who aligns with a specific position based on a foundational ethical theory; _The Ethics Facilitator_, who clarifies ethical disagreements to enable reasoned debate; and _The Engaged Philosopher_, who reframes discussions to expand policy options. Ethical advising in public policy depends on a democratic public ethos, where debates remain reasonable and open to reflection. This ethos is increasingly threatened by populism, which portrays politics as an antagonistic struggle rather than a deliberative process. In such a polarized context, ethicists face the risk of having their work instrumentalized in divisive narratives, potentially undermining meaningful engagement. The case of ritual slaughter highlights these challenges, demonstrating how ethics advice can become entangled in contentious debates. To uphold democratic pluralism, ethicists must ensure that their contributions to policy-making foster an open, inclusive, and reflective deliberative process.

The many well-publicized food scandals in recent years have resulted in a general state of vulnerable trust. As a result, building consumer trust has become an important goal in agri-food policy. In their efforts to protect trust in the agricultural and food sector, governments and industries have tended to consider the problem of trust as merely a matter of informing consumers on risks. In this article, we argue that the food sector better addresses the problem of trust from the perspective of the trustworthiness of the food sector itself. This broad idea for changing the focus of trust is the assumption that if you want to be trusted, you should be trustworthy. To provide a clear understanding of what being trustworthy means within the food sector, we elaborate on both the concept of trust and of responsibility. In this way we show that policy focused on enhancing transparency and providing information to consumers is crucial, but not sufficient for dealing with the problem of consumer trust in the current agri-food context.

The combination of breeding for increased production and the intensification of housing conditions have resulted in increased occurrence of behavioral, physiological, and immunological disorders. These disorders affect health and welfare of production animals negatively. For future livestock systems, it is important to consider how to manage and breed production animals. In this paper, we will focus on selective breeding of laying hens. Selective breeding should not only be defined in terms of production, but should also include traits related to animal health and welfare. For this we like to introduce the concept of robustness. The concept of robustness includes individual traits of an animal that are relevant for health and welfare. Improving robustness by selective breeding will increase (or restore) the ability of animals to interact successfully with the environment and thereby to make them more able to adapt to an appropriate husbandry system. Application of robustness into a breeding goal will result in animals with improved health and welfare without affecting their integrity. Therefore, in order to be ethically acceptable, selective breeding in animal production should accept robustness as a breeding goal.

Nowadays many debates are going on that relate to the agricultural and food sector. It looks as if present technological and organizational developments within the agricultural and food sector are badly geared to societal needs and expectations. In this article we briefly present a toolkit for moral communication within the food chain. This toolkit is developed as part of a European research project. Next, we discuss what such a toolkit can bring about, given the characteristics of the present day agricultural and food sector and its wider context. We defend that the toolkit can be seen as one of the mechanisms that can help enterprises in the agricultural and food sector to be accountable. It should, however, be complemented with other mechanisms, first, to empower the wider public and, second, to stimulate a dialogue, on a more equal footing, between public authorities, citizens, and economic actors.

European animal disease policy seems to find its justification in a “harm to other” principle. Limiting the freedom of animal keepers—e.g., by culling their animals—is justified by the aim to prevent harm, i.e., the spreading of the disease. The picture, however, is more complicated. Both during the control of outbreaks and in the prevention of notifiable, animal diseases the government is confronted with conflicting claims of stakeholders who anticipate running a risk to be harmed by each other, and who ask for government intervention. In this paper, we first argue that in a policy that aims to prevent animal diseases, the focus shifts from limiting “harm” to weighing conflicting claims with respect to “risks of harm.” Therefore, we claim that the harm principle is no longer a sufficient justification for governmental intervention in animal disease prevention. A policy that has to deal with and distribute conflicting risks of harm needs additional value assumptions that guide this process of assessment and distribution. We show that currently, policies are based on assumptions that are mainly economic considerations. In order to show the limitations of these considerations, we use the interests and position of keepers of backyard animals as an example. Based on the problems they faced during and after the recent outbreaks, we defend the thesis that in order to develop a sustainable animal disease policy other than economic assumptions need to be taken into account.

In this paper, we present and defend the theoretical framework of an empirical model to describe people’s fundamental moral attitudes (FMAs) to animals, the stratification of FMAs in society and the role of FMAs in judgment on the culling of healthy animals in an animal disease epidemic. We used philosophical animal ethics theories to understand the moral basis of FMA convictions. Moreover, these theories provide us with a moral language for communication between animal ethics, FMAs, and public debates. We defend that FMA is a two-layered concept. The first layer consists of deeply felt convictions about animals. The second layer consists of convictions derived from the first layer to serve as arguments in a debate on animal issues. In a debate, the latter convictions are variable, depending on the animal issue in a specific context, time, and place. This variability facilitates finding common ground in an animal issue between actors with opposing convictions.

Synthetic biology aims at designing biological systems, at building ‘living machines’. The emergence of synthetic biology has reignited the cycle of public debate. The old biotechnology debate is being reiterated and the controversies are deepened. The societal debate follows the technological hype cycle. A new technology with a high visibility and high expectations also raises high controversies. For synthetic biology, this hype is currently near its peak and the first signs of disillusionment are getting visible. In policy development, on the other hand, synthetic biology is in the early stages. Governments examine the need for adaptations to existing regulatory frameworks. There is a gap between the visibility of the technological developments and policy formulation. This gap is crucial for technology assessment: while the hype in public attention is over, essential policy steps are taken. In order to close this gap, technology assessment needs to facilitate the societal–ethical debate when media attention, and thus the visibility of the technological developments, declines

Consumer concerns pop up. They are relatedto the safety of agrifood products for people, foranimals, and for the environment as well as the socialand ethical implications of certain agrifoodproduction methods. At first sight, the WTO agreementand the SPS and TBT agreements appear to offersufficient legal scope to deal with these concerns andresolve trade conflicts. The events of recent years,however, have shown the limitations of theseagreements in dealing with cultural differencesbetween nations and in dealing with the social andpolitical pressure on national governments to lay downrestrictive, trade distorting measures. It is vitalthat we consider the dynamic relationship betweennational governments, civil society, and the market.In the United States, Canada, and Europe, thisrealization is growing. We propose that these issuesshould be studied by experts in several disciplines:technical experts, hygiene experts and veterinarians,public administration experts, lawyers, philosophers,ethicists, sociologists, and, of course, economists.To unite these disciplines and provide a platform fordiscussion in the light of international tradeliberalisation, the cultural identity of distinctcommunities, and the functioning of the democraticnation state an international network is needed. Wetherefore propose establishing a network to explorethe issues and dynamics described above. The networkshould be international and interdisciplinary withparticipants, initially, from science and government.The purpose of the network would be to present newperspectives to the negotiating parties in the nextWTO round. The first steps to development of thisnetwork have since been taken and an initial group hasbeen established.

The notion of Dignity of Creatures has been voted into the Swiss Federal Constitution by a plebiscite. Philipp Balzer, Klaus-Peter Rippe, and Peter Schaber have given an expert opinion for the Swiss government to clarify the notion of Dignity of Creatures. According to them, by voting this notion into the Swiss constitution, the Swiss have chosen for a limited biocentric approach towards biotechnology. In such an approach genetic engineering of non-human beings is only allowed insofar that their own good is not impaired. It is, however, not clear when the good of a non-human being is impaired. I defend the position that – even if we confine ourselves to animals – their good goes beyond their well being.

Three types of concern for animal welfare are widelyheld: Animals should feel well, they should function well, andthey should lead natural lives. The paper deals with a well-knownanswer to the question of why such concerns are morallyappropriate: Human beings have direct duties towards animals,because animals are beings that can flourish, the flourishing ofanimals is intrinsically or inherently valuable, and that whichis conducive to their flourishing is a legitimate object of moralconcern. Looking for a tenable conception of direct dutiestowards animals, the following questions are discussed: Whatshould we take it to mean that ``animal flourishing isintrinsically or inherently valuable?'''' Under what conditions doesa living being''s ability to flourish create direct duties towardsthis being? Is awareness or sentience required for there to bedirect duties towards a living being? Does such a requirementimply that moral concerns for animals would be limited to theirfeeling well, or does it also give way to having moral concernsfor their functioning well and leading natural lives? Can onetake into account considered judgements that claim that towardsdifferent animals we have moral duties that differ in kind and/orstrength? If environmental ethics cannot be based on theconception of direct duties here discussed, should one draw adistinction between duties towards ourselves, our fellow humanbeings, or animals, and duties regarding plants, or collectiveentities such as populations, species, and ecosystems?