Collins 1

Lauren Collins English 1102 Instructor: Fran Voltz 10/30/13

Feeding the Stomachs of the Masses or the Egos of the Few Since the dawn of the agricultural revolution, when man first took survival into his own hands and started growing crops, society has sought out newer and better farming techniques. From terrace farming to monoculture farming, man has been able to shape the environment around him to improve crop yield. Now, with new advances in genetic science, man is able to alter his actual crops. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are plants and animals that have had their genetic make-up altered artificially in a scientific setting. As society progresses into the 21st century, this technology is becoming readily available to farmers around the world, both local and commercial. The increasing availability of Genetically Modified food raises questions of ethics regarding the subject. Scientists and policy makers are taking into account both the risks and benefits of allowing GM food into society. The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the ethical arguments regarding GMOs. First, it is important to establish that, despite commonly held assumptions, genetically modified food is safe for human consumption. When the idea of using GMOs in agriculture for human consumption was first introduced in the 1980s, many advocacy groups made erroneous claims that GMOs caused cancer or were poisonous to the human body. These assertions were not based in scientific study, but rather humanitys tendency

Collins 2

towards fear of the unknown. After years of extensive scientific research conducted in many different countries, there is a general consensus in the scientific community that GMOs do not pose a health risk. In light of this development, it became the policy of the World Health Organization that there is virtually no difference between GM food and non-GM food, and that the former is as safe as the latter (Oriola). There are still those that claim there are negative health effects to consuming GMOs, but their claims are not supported by current research and as such they should not be taken as fact. With health risks removed from the debate, the focus has turned to the ethical implications of using GMOs. Starting to evaluate GMOs on an ethical basis moves the debate from the world of science to the world of philosophy. Lawmakers must now make the decision based on what they believe is the right thing to do. However, this realm of ethics is far more objective that scientific evidence. There are many different methods for evaluating the issue. Some opponents of GMOs reject their usage on an intrinsic level; it is ethically wrong to manipulate the genes of naturally occurring organisms (Jefferson). However, this idea of manipulating the natural world is not a new concept to the business of agriculture. For centuries, gene modification was accomplished through breeding (Jefferson). Agriculturalists could manipulate crops and livestock by breeding for particular traits, such as yield or durability. These important and desirable traits are still the focus of GMO research, but the method of genetic engineering is faster and occurs entirely in a scientific lab setting. The goals of breeding and genetic engineering are the

Collins 3

same, and as such should not be treated differently in their inherent moral rightness. Accordingly, the basis of ethical judgment should instead focus on extrinsic concerns. The basis of extrinsic arguments is the potential for GMOs to cause long-term harm to the environment. The fear is that genetically modified organisms will be released into the wild and overcome natural species. This could lead to a shrinking of the global gene pool (Jefferson). Genetic diversity is considered important by many environmental scientists for maintaining biodiversity for future generations. One method for determining whether it is ethical to use GMOs focuses on the possible risks they present, mentioned above. Known as the Harm Principle, this idea states that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others (Holtug). This is a general philosophical principle, but when applied to GMOs it holds that in order for a government to step in and override the peoples liberty and freedom to choose any type of agriculture they desire, the risk of GMOs must be significant. In action, this method means that if no one stands to be harmed, the liberty of manufacturers and of consumers is not to be interfered with (Holtug). This practice is commonly used by lawmakers because it expresses concern for public safety as well as patriotic values such as personal freedom. Holtug argues, however, that the harm principle is not sufficient in evaluating GM food because it does not express a concern for the expected benefits of such food. New trends take into account not only the ethical concerns but also the benefits of GMOs.

Collins 4

As current media focuses on only the dangers of GMOs, it creates a limited bipolar view of the issue in the minds of citizens (Poortinga). In reality, the issue is much more complex when the potential for GMOs to be beneficial is taken into account. One of the most pressing issues in todays global society is chronic hunger and malnutrition. One statistic states that over 800 million people in the world are chronically or severely malnourished. Many eat less than the minimum quantity necessary for survival, resulting in a mortality rate of 36 million deaths per year (Jefferson). One explanation for this is that while population levels, especially in less-developed countries, are continually increasing there is not an equivalent increase in agricultural production. In fact, as populations increase it is harder to maintain current levels of agricultural output due to increased pollution and strain on the environment. While there are traditional methods that can be used to try to reduce global famine, the application of genetic engineering to agriculture has been variously hailed as the surest means of achieving food security, through expected yields in crops and livestock production (Oriola). As the technology of GMOs increases, its potential is limitless. If GMOs can provide a solution, it is unjust not to use [them] to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in developing countries (Toft). Still, many are hesitant to implement these new scientific advances. The best way to evaluate the feasibility of global GMO use as a method to reduce world hunger is to weigh expected benefits against perceived risks. As with any new technology, it will take years for GMOs to be fully vetted by society before they can become accepted. It is natural for people to have concerns about

Collins 5

any revolutionary scientific advancement, especially if it directly affects their everyday life. As more research refutes the negative health claims of GMOs, the general population will become more willing to see their inherit value. Unfortunately, scientific research will not go a long way towards swaying those with ethical concerns about GMOs. These questions of ethics are valid in their own right, but there is also a train of thought that holds it is the ethical responsibility of the scientific community to use new technology to help improve the human condition. There are many places in the world that suffer due to a lack of available food. By implementing GMOs into famine ridden areas, agricultural yields can increase. This can greatly improve the quality of life of many people across the globe. When weighing benefits and risk, any negative impacts of GMOs are negligible compared to this technology's potential in helping solve one of the most concerning global issues- hunger. People in developed nations, who are not impacted by a lack of available food, should not prevent those who deal with this problem on a daily basis from having access to GMOs. When choosing between basic needs for survival or lofty ethical concerns, most people would choose survival. It is important to keep in perspective that while the policy makers debate the theoretical concerns, countless people are waiting for a real solution to their problems. That solution is genetically modified food.

Collins 6

Works Cited
Holtug, N. "The Harm Principle and Genetically Modified Food." JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS 14 (2001): 169-78. Print.

Jefferson, V. "The Ethical Dilemma of Genetically Modified Food." Journal of Environmental Health 69.1 (2006): n. pag. Print.

Oriola, Taiwo A. "Consumer Dilemmas: The Right to Know, Safety, Ethics and Policy of Genetically Modified Food." Singapore Journal of Legal Studies (2002): 514-73. Print.

Poortinga, Wouter, and Pidgeon F. Nick. "Exploring the Structure of Attitudes Toward Genetically Modified Food." RISA Risk Analysis 26.6 (2006): 1707-719. Print.

Toft, Kristian Hyer. "GMOs and Global Justice: Applying Global Justice Theory to the Case of Genetically Modified Crops and Food." Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25.2 (2012): 223-37. Print