Dylan Humpal

Environmental Ethics Final Paper

December 16, 2015
The Morality of Genetically Modified Foods
In this case study analysis paper, I shall argue that it is morally acceptable to use
genetically modified foods. In this study, I will refer to the natural rights theory, ecological
ethics, Catholic Social Teaching, utilitarian theory, Blackstones theory, and John Rawls
principal of justice to provide evidence for my moral stance of why it is ethically acceptable to
use and consume genetically modified foods. I will provide facts for each side of the argument
and end with a final analysis of why my stance outweighs that of the opposing facts. I will begin
with the natural rights theory, ecological ethics, and Aldo Leopolds Land Ethic.
According to the natural rights theory, ecological ethics, and Aldo Leopolds Land Ethic,
the relevant facts that support my moral judgment are as follows. Under the natural rights theory,
human beings have the right to food which is becoming a major issue with the growing global
population. With the projection of the population to be over 9 billion people by 2030, there is not
enough food to feed that many people which takes away the right to food. With biotechnology,
farmers have the ability to increase the productivity of farmland and make better use of tropical
forest and other habitat that isnt normally able to grow crops. This all leads to higher yields and
greater crop production that can lead to feeding a growing population. Many parts of the world
are already filled with malnourished people. This is why Monsanto changed its motto during the
introduction of GMOs during the 90s. The companys new motto, Food, Health, and Hope,
conveyed the message that biotechnologies held the promise of better health an improved

nutrition for the 850 million malnourished people in the developing world. Aldo Leopolds land
ethic talks about land as an energy circuit. This means that land is not merely just soil, that native
plants and animals keep the energy circuit open, and man-made changes are of a different order
than evolutionary changes, and have effects more comprehensible that is intended or foreseen.
By being able to use biotechnology and plant GMOs, farmers can no-till fields without having to
worry about weeds which allows for the underground ecosystem to succeed. Insects, roots, and
microorganisms give the soil an elaborate architecture, which holds the ground in place and
makes it a sponge for water. This is also another reason why erosion and runoff have been
greatly reduced. This leads into ecological ethics which states that human interaction with the
environment is morally acceptable, if it respects the well-being and flourishing of both human
and non-human life on earth. By being able to no-till fields, there is respect and protection for the
land. While using pesticides and herbicides, there is the concern that bugs and weeds are being
killed. However, pesticides and herbicides only target certain pests and weeds so not all are being
killed. Seed bags containing GMOs also carry a refuge product which means that a percentage of
the bag is not genetically modified and can still be eaten by pests without killing them.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my moral judgment are
as follows. Genetically modified foods also include the bovine growth hormone. This does not
follow ecological ethics for having respect for human beings and non-human animals. There are
well-documented health problems for the cows, including increases in udder infections. In 1995
at a National Institutes for Health conference, the following adverse effects of the bovine growth
hormone were identified for humans; a strong role in breast cancer, a special risk of colon cancer,
a role in osteosarcoma which is a common bone tumor in children, and is implicated in lung
cancer. Another relevant fact that goes against human rights, more specifically the right to work,

is that since biotechnology makes it easier for farmers to grow more crops, wealthier farmers will
bring more land into production. If a farm becomes more productive, it may require less workers;
and if local labor markets cannot provide jobs for them, displaced workers may move to a nearby
patch of rain forest and burn it down to make way for subsistence farming. There are also several
ecological disruptions that can occur, which goes against ecological ethics. The huge risks of
GMOs include severe ecological disruptions, from gene flow and from enhanced invasiveness,
which is a very antiseptic word for some scary stuff. Finally, there are also relevant facts for Aldo
Leopold that go against the use of GMOs. Using genetically modified foods is an
anthropocentric view because of what humans have done to the crops and other foods. Leopolds
views relate to non-anthropocentric of being larger than just humans. Humans are more inclined
to feeding themselves and not considering the repercussions of what it may do to the land as it
should be a symbiotic relationship.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgment
outweighs the opposite conclusion. The evidence for the Land Ethic which discusses how being
able to no-till the land because of biotechnology that we are allowing the underground ecosystem
to succeed. Because of this, it is making the soil much stronger and is helping prevent erosion
and runoff. While there are several strong arguments for the opposite side, many of the tests and
figures about health defects on animals and humans were not fully proven and were on a small
sample. The ability to fulfill the human right to eat is not possible without the use of GMOs
which is why it is morally acceptable to use genetically modified foods according to the natural
rights theory, ecological ethics, and Aldo Leopolds Land Ethic.
According to the Catholic Social Teaching on the environment, the relevant facts that
support my moral judgment are as follows. Catholic Social Teaching tells us that human

interaction with the environment is morally acceptable, if it is guided by 1) a God-centered and

sacramental view of the universe, 2) a consistent respect for human life and all of creation, and
3) the need for an equitable and sustainable use of the earths resources. GMO use has a
consistent respect for human life and all of creation. By using biotechnology, there will be less
need to use so many pesticides which respects human life because of the dangers that come with
handling pesticides. While it may seem that there is no respect for insects or all of creation, there
is indeed. Genetically modified seed bags contain a refuge product, so only a certain percent of
the bag is genetically modified and not all insects are killed. The genetically modified seed that
will kill insects only targets certain kinds of pests so not all pests that come in contact are killed.
Another fact is that GMOs are tested through a thorough process to the point that technology and
influenced changes can be no more toxic than alternative choices. This has to do with the
common good and the need for an equitable and sustainable use of the earths resources because
it enables us to produce larger amounts while continually being safe for all. Another fact has to
do with the leader of the Catholic faith, the Pope. The Pope has addressed the importance of
water as hes said that access to safe drinkable water is a basic and universal human right, since
it is essential to human survival. GMOs have the ability to produce large crop yields with less
irrigated water which is sustaining the use of earths resources. The Pope was also quoted saying,
theres no conclusive proof that GMOs may be harmful to our bodies, which suggests that the
Pope is not against the use of GMOs. There are several con arguments that discuss the costs
associated with using biotechnology and how it is unavailable in 3rd world countries which is
not having a respect for human life, however this is not true. We have a responsibility to our
fellow human beings and that means importing grains and new biotechnology to 3rd world
countries where they have the ability to learn and start growing it themselves. Since the

technology is new it is more expensive, however the overall goal is to keep revolutionizing and
having biotechnology make it much cheaper to produce food instead of spending unnecessary
costs on equipment and other resources. Also, land is very valuable, one would almost say that
land has a sacramental value to the universe. Because of the capability of producing GMOs,
more people want to own land and it is now one of the most expensive things to buy.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my moral judgment are
as follows. Creating new technologies and having other creations is not simply a means to human
fulfillment. The element of a God-centered and sacramental view of the universe is violated
because so much of the land is being converted into farmland and is instead being used as just
another resource. It appears that GMOs are only being created for people who pay more because
the company will then profit more. They are then neglecting poor 3rd world countries who we
should actually be looking out for and having solidarity. The other relevant fact is genetically
modifying foods is not done under moderation. The Pope states, Genetic modification of crop is
a way, in a sense, to automate or rationalize farming. There is some proof that following the
introduction of the GMOs, land is concentrated for just a few owners who can actually afford
these technologies. We have a relationship to poor people. We also have a relationship to
preserve nature which we are not doing so through the risk of biodiversity by using GMOs.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgment
outweighs the opposite conclusion. The relevant fact that being able to conserve water creates a
sustainable use of earths resources is a really important fact. While both sides dont have strong
arguments for Catholic Social Teaching and the Catholic churchs leader has also shown pros and
cons to both sides, the fact that there are extensive tests done to GMOs and is proven that they

are unable to be used if they are at all any more toxic than alternative choices makes it morally
acceptable based off Catholic Social Teaching.
According to the utilitarian environmental theory, the relevant facts that support my
moral judgment are as follows. The internal costs are all much lower with the use of GMOs. The
utilitarian theory says that human interaction with the environment is morally acceptable if it
avoids harming societys economic welfare by absorbing all of the costs of producing
commodities. The products become much cheaper for farmers to use and the farmers also have
more money because less is being spent on pesticides, herbicides, equipment, and fuel. In cotton
alone, farmers saved $7.5 billion when using GMOs. The external costs in this situation would
be the potential of accidental cross-pollination of plants between neighbors. This kind of incident
has happened less than 1% of the time. There are also the costs of humans possibly getting sick
or increasing allergies from consumer GMOs, but that also has not been completely proven and
if it does happen it is rare. The external costs would also be lower because there would be less
use of pesticides and herbicides for farmers, which leads to less run-off and pollution of streams
and rivers. There would also be less plowing which leads to less fuel use and air pollutants being
emitted into the air from tractors and other pieces of machinery. Although fertilizer is something
that has to be used, which leads to some run-off and water pollution, the soil would be
completely depleted without it and it would be exhausted. The possible trade-offs to this would
be organic farming, which uses much more manure and produces more pollution. Or traditional
farming, which would require more plowing which would cause more soil erosion and use of
equipment and fuel which in turn leads to more pollution. An issue that comes around the topic
of GMOs is that poor farmers cannot afford these new technologies because of the inaccurate
market price problems. Biotechnology and GMOs have been in the market since the 90s with

the introduction of RoundupReady soybeans. GMOs have come a long way since then with new
innovations, however many undeveloped countries still cannot afford the most basic and earliest
biotechnology for farming. Those people that are trying to get their hands on this technology are
dealing with inaccurate market price problems that are brought on by their own government.
Much of the costs that are associated with GMOs include the regulatory process, or approval
process which includes all the safety testing done by their own government agencies. However,
politics get involved very often which heavily influences the price. For example, China has
millions of people that need to be fed, however they are one of the biggest problems when it
comes to approving GM traits. This is not because of any safety concerns associated with the
traits, but instead it is the Chinese government delaying the approval process and raising prices
so that they can catch up with the rest of the world in technology and begin to develop biotech
traits themselves. With so many people needing to be fed, the corn price is very high in China
compared to in the U.S. where the corn price is low. The Chinese government does not want to
import cheap grain into their country, and instead grow it themselves by developing their own
biotech traits. This is an example of how politics can also play a huge role in influencing costs
put on people which translates to costs on the environment as well. Theres no escaping the
pressure farming puts on the planet, however using GMOs appears to be the best option when
comparing the costs. The potential upside to GMO use is too large to ignore.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my moral judgment are
as follows. Using biotechnology will require capital investment in new seed and equipment,
require new skills, and a fragile transition period as farmer and ecology adjust to new farming
methods, and an often considerable amount of trial and error to find out what works best on any
given field. These problems are only magnified in 3rd world countries, where the learning curve

is steeper and capital cushions are usually nonexistent. Another fact is that biotech companies are
much more concerned about making money. They turn their interest into investing time and
money in farmers who are willing to pay more and do more as a customer. The next point is that
biotechnology is not regulated or tested which means that we dont know the repercussions of the
market defects that could lead to misallocation of resources. We dont have all the answers, and
to pretend we do, or to brush off concerns as unfounded, is to be arrogant and reckless. The fact
that we are unaware of possible long term effects of using GMOs raises the question of whether
the benefits are worth the possible consequences. There is also environmental injustice, which is
that low-income farmers pay the social costs of having pollution and companies will continue to
sell to only large investors.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgment
outweighs the opposite conclusion. The benefits definitely outweigh the costs from a utilitarian
standpoint as both internal and external costs are absorbed of producing commodities. The fact
that internal and external costs are much lower with the use of GMOs is an important point for
the pro side. Another important relevant fact is that while farming puts a lot of unavoidable
pressure on the planet, using GMOs is the best option to leave as little environmental damage as
possible. While there are some external costs, the benefits greatly outweigh the costs with the
ability to feed so many more people, reduce pollution, reduce the amount of depleted land and
water, and reduce the amount of harmful chemicals that have to be used to grow successful
crops. GMOs are the best choice that the planet has to sustain life.
According to Blackstones theory, the relevant facts that support my moral judgment are
as follows. These facts are relevant because they respect the right to a livable environment. A
livable environment really isnt possible without food which with the growing population is

becoming less and less. With GMOs we are able to produce more food for the world and
maintain a livable environment. Using biotechnology we are also able to create GMOs that can
help benefit the environment. Irrigation has been a cornerstone of agriculture for quite some time
but it has come with a steep price. As irrigation water evaporates, it leaves behind traces of salt,
which accumulate in the soil and gradually render it infertile. Every year the world loses about
25 million acres to salinity. Now with biotechnology, plant breeders are now able to create salttolerant crops. Salt-tolerant crops might bring millions of acres of wounded or crippled land back
into production. There is also the capability of using other transgenic crops such as tomato
plants, which take up six or seven percent of their weight in sodium. We have the capability of
reclaiming a salt contaminated field by growing enough of these transgenic crops to remove salts
from the soil. With GMOs, we can also now plant drought-tolerant crops which would help save
water and require less irrigation which would also help with the issue of salinity in soil. As
addressed earlier, there is concern for wasting too much and running short of fresh water, which
according to the Pope is a basic and universal right, since it is essential to human survival.
Without water, we dont have a livable environment, so it is essential to save water at all costs.
GMOs also provide overall less stress on the land. Using GMOs, farmers can use new forms of
growing crops such as no-till which helps conserve and save the land. By using the no-till
farming technique, farmers dont have to continually plow up the ground to get rid of weeds.
Plowing the ground also tears apart the underground ecosystem that is essential for soil nutrients.
Plowing also makes the land very susceptible to erosion and washing which takes away usable
land that makes it hard to have a livable environment. Also by using GMOs, less fertilizer needs
to be used which is safer for everyone who handles those chemicals, and also will reduce run-off
from fields into streams and rivers, which all makes for a more livable environment. Along the

same lines of fertilizer run-off, new farming techniques mean that farmers dont need to use as
much equipment, they dont need to drive back and forth with a heavy plow which saves money
and fuel, and of course it saves energy and pollution.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my moral judgment are
as follows. There are still many question marks about possible long term effects of genetically
modified foods that have not yet been solved by scientists. We do not know how it will affect
future generations or if it will maintain a livable environment in the long term. Genetically
modified foods are manipulating the environment and are foods that are not normally found or
grown in nature and for that they should not be known. There is no knowledge of the
consequences that it could have for a future livable environment. The introduction of genetically
modified organisms into the complex ecosystems of our environment is a dangerous global
experiment with nature and evolution. They pose unacceptable risks to ecosystems, and have the
potential to threaten biodiversity, wildlife, and sustainable forms of agriculture. The
precautionary principle for a livable environment is an important argument. Many say that
releases of GMOs should be delayed until extensive, rigorous research is done which determine
the long-term environmental and health impacts of each GMO and there is public debate to
ascertain the need for the use of each GMO intended for release into the environment. Another
key fact that opposes GMOs is allergies. Each gene in a GMO contributes a single protein to the
genetic pool that comprises a living organism. Proteins are crucial substances that play many
roles in human physiology as well. When a person exhibits an allergic reaction, what the body is
reacting to is a protein, most often a foreign or introduced protein. If allergies are associated with
introduced proteins, and if GMOs are by definition characterized by introduced genes that

produce proteins, than there is a situation which caution about allergies is important in a livable
environment.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgment
outweighs the opposite conclusion. A livable environment constitutes that humans have a moral
right to a decent environment, and with the use of GMOs there is an ability to have that. A
livable environment is not possible with farmland shrinking because of erosion or salinity and
the depletion of water, however the use of GMOs and biotechnology allows us to prevent these
sorts of things from occurring and instead maintaining a livable environment. The fact that we
are able to utilize and restore thousands of acres with GMO use is essential to help improve
productivity of farmland and make better use of other habitat. While there may be some allergies
and risks that come with GMOs, the right to a livable environment permits that human beings
can fulfill the capacities as a rational and free being, which includes choosing GMO or nonGMO food.
According to John Rawls principal of justice, the relevant facts that support my moral
judgment are as follows. Besides growing more food for an increasing population, preserving
land for future generations and leaving the world in no worse shape than what we received is
really a key benefit that comes with using GMOs. With a growing population, more and more
resources continue to be depleted in order to fit those growing demands. In order to counter that,
there are other areas where resources should be conserved. Using GMOs, we have the ability to
double our crop production and food for the world with the same amount of land. Also, we are
able to save on water, which is a valuable resource that is needed for not only now but for future
generations, by using more drought-tolerant genes in crops. By using less irrigated water, we are
also then able to cut back on salinity in the soil that is left over after irrigated water evaporates.

Every year the world loses about 25 million acres to salinity which is 40% of the worlds
irrigated land which is leaving the environment in worse shape than what we received. With salttolerant crops, we will still have the ability to utilize that land. Also, transgenic crops that are
heavily reliant on sodium can help reclaim lost acres that were salt-contaminated and remove the
salts from the soil. Farmers are also able to use a no-till farming technique. By doing this, there
is a much less chance for erosion of the land to take place which is a huge issue as thousands of
acres of top soil continue to be taken off the land each year and washed into unable to be farmed
riverbeds. A concern for future generations is climate change and pollution. By using no-till and
having to use less pesticides, there are less trips for machinery which reduces fuel use and air
pollution. Less pesticide use also means less run-off that could contaminate and pollute rivers,
streams, and underground freshwater. The key to sustaining our environment is being able to
grow everything we need while maintaining or even reducing our agricultural footprint which
includes: returning cropland to wilderness, repairing damaged soils, restoring ecosystems, and so
on. We need to get through the next four or five decades with as little environmental damage as
possible, which is where biotechnology comes in with helping us leave a world that is in no
worse shape than the one we received.
On the other hand, the relevant facts that support the opposite of my moral judgment are
as follows. The fact that we do not yet know the certain implications of how GMO foods will
affect us in the future is a gamble in knowing how this will affect our immediate successors.
Will we actually be leaving a better world than we had or will this cause the earth land to
plummet? It is known that agriculture of any type whether subsistence, organic, or intensive
farming affects the environment, so we can only expect that use of new genetic techniques will
also affect our environment. The GM Science Review Panel and the Nuffield Council on

Bioethics agree that the environmental impact of genetically transformed crops may be either
positive or negative depending on how and where they are used. Genetic engineering could
accelerate the damaging effects of agriculture or contribute to a more sustainable agricultural
practices and conservation of natural resources. The Lockean principle tells us we should leave
enough and as good for others. GMO foods could cause long-term infertility and sterility in
humans for future generations. Researchers took five pairs of hamsters from separate groups.
Each group produced about 7-8 litters. The first generations seem to have no fertility or offspring
problems. The second generation had a slower growth rate and reached sexual maturity later than
normal with 39 litters. The group without GM had 78 while the group with GM only had 40
pups. In the third generation, the GM soy eating hamsters were sterile and lost abilities to have
babies altogether. This has potential to have direct impact on future generations and its risky
since we do not know the long term affects for future generations.
In the final analysis, here is why the evidence which supports my moral judgment
outweighs the opposite conclusion. The main focus and benefit for the use of GMOs besides
food production is sustainability for the environment. By using GMOs we are able to reduce any
further agricultural footprint on the environment by reducing the use of irrigated water,
preventing erosion and fertilizer run off, and reducing pollution to the environment. While there
are reasons for concern of possible long term effects for future generations, nothing has been
fully proven to provide the right answer. There is one answer that is clear and that is all of the
great benefits that using GMOs provides in sustaining our environment and helping us hand over
to our immediate successors a world than is in no worse condition than the one we received.
Based off of the natural rights theory, ecological ethics, Catholic Social Teaching,
utilitarian theory, Blackstones theory, and John Rawls principal of justice and the evidence that

supports them, it is morally acceptable to use genetically modified foods. The reasoning and
logic of each analysis provide support for this argument and why it is acceptable.