Biotechnology and Ethics: Agriculture
Part One
Genetic modification of food products, a reality in the United States, continues to be controversial. We will explore a variety of issues including the moral evaluation of risk, environmental concerns, the potential for international inequality and health concerns. Added to this, people worry that animals used in food production will be abused by biotechnological transformation.
To date, genetic modification of agricultural products has been relatively safe. Critics argue that new power to change the genetic structure of products could lead to hidden and apparent dangers, even to some of tragic proportions. Defenders point to the current safety levels. They believe all will be relatively safe but that this will require constant oversight and testing. In this unit, we’ll explore such issues.
Agricultural biotechnology involves genetically engineering plants and animals.
Genetic engineering of plants and nonhuman animals typically involves transfer DNA from one organism to another. In this way, the function performed in one organism can be transfer to another organism.
Opponents to bio-engineered food point to a tomato altered to include a fish gene. That sounds a bit disgusting, but we should recall that organisms of all sorts have many similar genes.
The fact that this example, a tomato-fish, is brought up, suggests the extent to which some people are opposed to bioengineering agricultural produces.
It is easy to find statements on the Web such as the following, indicating extreme hostility to genetically altered crops: “You, the public, must decide whether to stop Monsanto and other aggressive US capitalists from placing millions of lives, including those of you and your family, at risk. You can do this by demanding your government bring the multinational corporations under control.”
Please take a pause now from this material and open the following links on the internet and go over their contents.
(1)
(2)
As you see, Greenpeace views genetically modified agriculture as “the end of the world as we know it.”
Biotechnology and Ethics: Agriculture
Part Two
Opponents object to genetically altered food for a wide variety of reasons. We will briefly examine many of these, attempting to provide both sides of the issue.
As we go on, keep in mind that many of the foods we now eat, or at least have available, in the United States have been genetically altered. Most of us have little knowledge about which foods are and which are not modified.
Also, we should understand that genetically modified products are heavily regulated in many countries, especially in Europe.
A further initial point to keep in mind: Currently the world population is over 6 billion people, with 9 billion people expected by 2050.
If you want to check out these statistics, which of course change daily, please link to:
Biotech holds out the promise of feeding a growing and hungryworld.
Today, malnourishment and starvation are common occurrences in the world, perhaps the most serious health hazard. Estimates are that millions of people die of hunger related diseases every year. Care claims that 840 million people are malnourished and that six million children under the age of five die each year of starvation. These are enormous numbers, and represent untold agony around the world.
See:
Proponents of genetically engineered crops, as vocal as many critics, contend that it holds the key to feeding and nourishing the world’s people. Opponents claim that hunger is political, that we already have the capacity to feed the world.
Biotechnology and Ethics: Agriculture
Part Three
The main moral concerns with genetically enhanced crops concern the balance of risks and benefits. There are of course people who object to interference with plant life, but this seems to be a relatively less serious objection than those who object due to the risks involved. Much of the moral debate focuses on the extent of risks, which are real.
Other objections concern possible disadvantages that underdeveloped countries may face, which could cause increased unemployment and greater poverty. For example, with genetic modifications, some crops might be produced in richer countries than can only be produced today in poorer countries with more suitable climate and soil conditions. If such crops are no longer produced in some countries, then unemployment and a weak economy could lead to increased hunger and death.
Genetic engineering of animals raises an entirely different line of objections, centering on respect for animals, a deontological concern.
Proponents of genetic engineering claim that it is essentially like the kind of engineering that has gone on for centuries and naturally as well, and they believe that the potential gains to human beings are enormous. They believe that no human activities are without risk, but that risk must be balanced, in an informed way, against benefits.
Differences in beliefs about whether genetic modification of agricultural is helpful or harmful depend upon more than the facts of the matter.
One problem is that it involves predictions about the future.
Risk involves circumstances in which we know the probability of a given outcome. Based upon experience, we might know the probability that a given medical treatment will work is 50%. Even with this knowledge, we might disagree about whether the treatment is worthwhile. Such decisions may depend on subjective valuation of the benefits gained. We might question whether a fifty per cent success rate is worth minor risks and side effects.
Uncertainty is different. Uncertainty, technically, means that we do not know the probabilities. For example, with an experimental treatment, we might not know how to evaluate the probability of success. This would make it more difficult to determine whether or not the treatment is worthwhile.
There is both uncertainty and risk involved with genetic modification of agricultural products.
Some opponents to genetic modifications argue that there is a potential for tragic adverse circumstances. Those supporting it claim that the uncertainties are overstated and the risks are relatively minor. The problem is that it is sometimes difficult to evaluate such claims because they involve long-term predictions.
How one views these predictions may depend upon basic attitudes to technological advances.
Proponents tend to view technology as the answer to problems, and there are many problems in current agriculture. They tend to believe that harmful outcomes can be successfully controlled or avoided, by careful testing and by appropriate testing and responses. As we have seen, this position is sometimes called ‘technological voluntarism.’
Opponents tend to believe that technological changes have their own logic. They believe that implementation of changes is basically uncontrollable once the skill to do so exists. They point to the recent past, where environmental degradation and destructive wars have followed from technological advances. This view is sometimes called ‘technological determinism.’
The precautionary principle is a similar concern. It basically calls for extraordinary precaution in dealing with
For a good summary of the precautionary principle go to Wikipedia:
As its name suggests, the precautionary principle calls for extreme caution, including very careful testing, to insure as far as possible that risks are controlled.
See the following for the Cartagenaprotocol that calls for such precautions:
The precautionary principle does not rule out genetic modifications. It does call for extraordinary care, more than “ordinary” modifications of agricultural products would require.
Opponents of the principle claim that by being over cautious benefits may be delayed or even never put into production.
Biotechnology and Ethics: Agriculture
Part Four
As you read this be sure to keep in mind the kinds of things that genetic modification of plants can do. It can, as we saw, put a fish gene in a tomato, and it can make plants more resistant to draught and to pesticides.
Added to one’s view of technology is the view that one should not interfere with nature. Of course, we have manipulated agricultural products, by for example cross breeding to produce hybrid plants, for centuries. Virtually no one objects to this.
But genetic engineering is something new and gives a dramatically different power over nature. Although cross specie breeding is possible in some circumstances, now genes from virtually anything can be quickly transferred to another organism. The speed and extent of the manipulation of nature is new.
Those who take the “don’t play God” view see it as unwise to interfere with nature, partly because it is simply playing God, but also because it can lead to consequences that cannot be predicted.
As long as the view is about consequences, whether one is a voluntarism or a determinist, and optimist or a pessimist, the moral evaluation proceeds from a consequentialist stance.
But the “playing God” view should be viewed as a deontological position.
Any view that hinges on the “integrity” of plants would also probably be a deontological position.
Agriculture as it has been practiced recently involves tremendous use of chemical insecticides and herbicides.
Biotech can produce plants that are more resistant to destructive pests.
The promise is that production costs can be reduced and pollution decreased by using smaller quantities of chemical.
This sounds like a scenario that everyone should support, but one that ignores potential problems.
Biotechnology and Ethics: Agriculture
Part Five
One serious problem many people mention involves breeding between plants. Suppose that a new insect resistant plant is created. Suppose that plant also cross-fertilizes with a weed that had also been susceptible to destruction by insects. After cross-fertilization the weed might become a super resistant weed.
Some would say that the risk of producing a producing such super weeds makes genetic engineering too risky.
Which of these comes closest to your view on risk versus benefit? Here are two possible replies. Think about which comes closest to your point of view.
(1) This is an empirical problem. We know about the harm from chemical use, and so we need to check to see whether the risks of producing super weeds are serious enough to overcome the benefits. This is a good utilitarian perspective from the perspective of a technological voluntarist.
(2) Once one knows that this possibility exists, we should not allow for genetic modification. There is no real way to know what will happen. Any test is in the present for a short term. But the gene transfer could be around for decades or longer. Since we do not know what will happen in the future, we should go very slowly if at all. This sounds like the perspective of a technological determinist.
Can you think of additional answers?
Similar concerns to those involving insect resistant corps are expressed about the possibility of the development of new viruses.
When genes are changed, viruses may break them apart, recombine them, and thereby create new viruses. The fear is that such new viruses may destroy whole crops
For some people, the possibility of such viruses is enough to claim that biotech should be limited.
For others, careful testing is the solution. The fact that to date genetic modification in agriculture has been quite safe is enough to indicate that benefits are greater than risks.
Critics of genetic modification of food products claim that genetically modified foods are not safe.
It is possible, for example, to make harmless plants poisonous. Proponents point out that such plants would have little commercial value, and that the safety record of genetically modified food is extraordinary.
Furthermore, proponents argue that natural plants may also be harmful.
Opponents argue that techniques used for genetic modification of food products might be used to promote bioterrorism.
Proponents argue that this is unlikely and more difficult to achieve than other terror tactics.
Audio. The basics of the debate should be clear by now. Proponents point to benefits and current safety. Opponents center on fears about an uncertain future. Each view shows a slant toward either technological voluntarism or technological determinism.
When foods are genetically modified they can take on properties of other organisms. This poses a serious risk
One example frequently pointed out involves a transfer of Brazil nut gene to soy beans. Some people have very serious allergies to nuts.
Apparently, this was discovered and the planned transfer was not commercially produced.
Opponents argue that it becomes difficult to impossible to keep track of gene changes that could hurt selected people.
Proponents argue that production has to date been safe, that good testing can eliminate such problems, and that genetic engineering holds the promise of eliminating the allergens that prohibit people from eating some food products, such as peanut butter.
Proponents of genetic modification of agricultural products argue that it will help developing countries. It could help with chemical use, land erosion, and production problems.
For example, some crops in poorer countries might not be able to reach richer markets because they ripen too quickly. This could be controlled by genetic modification. Also, some crops might become easier to harvest, such as coffee beans, by changing ripening so that it occurs simultaneously.
Critics claim that genetic modification will give new power to multinational companies, such as Monsanto, to control production in poorer nations. Also, crops that now can only be produced in some poorer countries might be modified so that production could occur in richer places. This could destroy the economy of some poorer countries.
Biotechnology and Ethics: Agriculture
Part Six
Opponents of genetic modification argue that it is unfair not to tell people which foods have been genetically modified. Today most of us eat foods, perhaps daily, that have been modified, but most of us don’t know which foods are more likely modified.
The proposed answer is to require detailed labeling. This would give people choices and knowledge that may help those with health concerns. For example, if an animals gene is transferred into a plant, some vegetarians may not want to consume the plant products.
Those against labeling claim that this unfairly singles out genetically modified foods. After all, many alterations are not reported.
Furthermore, many products are mixed. Genetically modified soybeans may be mixed with soybeans that are not modified. Labeling could thus produce significant difficulties and changes in the current practices. Proponents say that because genetic engineering has not caused serious problems, it should not be the target of labeling.
The power of multinational companies is a major concern of opponents to genetic modification.
One concern is that the seeds produced by large corporations could be engineered so that farmers could not harvest seeds for the coming future crops. This could enhance the economic status of a large company at the expense of poorer farmers, and consumers as well.
Proponents argue that hybrid plants already produce poor seeds, and that legally binding agreements are currently being used to curtail harvesting of seeds.
Proponents of genetic modification point to the production of rice with vitamin A.
Genes from plants that produce vitamin A were transferred into rice. The intention is to add vitamin A to the diets of people that mainly eat rice. This could lead to the prevention of diseases, such as blindness.
Proponents point to this as a major achievement; while opponents claim that the vitamin A produced is not enough to meet all nutrition needs and that a vitamin pill would be better.
The monarch butterfly has become a point of controversy regarding genetic modification.
A Cornell professor reported an experiment showing that pollen from genetically modified corn killed the larvae of the butterfly.
This proved to be symbolic of the potential impact of genetic modification.
It turned out that in actual conditions larvae were unlikely to eat sufficient quantities of the pollen for it to be harmful. Although a significant proportion of the corn crop is modified. It appears not to have actually decreased the monarch butterfly population.
See
and
for more information about the monarch butterfly.
Biotechnology and Ethics: Agriculture
Part Seven
For two conflicting views on genetic modification of agricultural products, see:
and