Introduction
Food is central to human existence. It is both cultural and personal. It is an emotive agenda. It is not surprising, therefore, that modifications to its production, distribution, and consumption often elicit intense ethical dilemmas and controversies. The fact that genetic modification of food is possible is not a reason enough to do it. Other considerations come into play, some of which completely put the safety of GMOs into serious doubt. The question of whether we should genetically modify food just because we can becomes core to the debate on the genetic modification of organisms.
Ethics can help us answer this question amid the prevailing controversies. Moral considerations can move this debate beyond factual scientific statements about whether food should be genetically modified to how this impacts ourselves and the environment we occupy (Budinger and Budinger 327). Thus, the law of the common good becomes the underlying ethical consideration informing genetic modification. In essence, the intention of genetically modifying food should be fothe r common good.
Common Good Ethics
The common good ethics can be traced to works of renowned ethicists such as Plato and Cicero, and holds that an act is only ethical if it holds the promise of everyone's advantage. The common good appeal has surfaced in discussions on, among other subjects, commercial social responsibilities and environmental pollution. Ethical analysts claim that the most essential social harms grow from the extensive pursuit of individual interests. It is the promotion of life conditions that not only minimizes struggling and suffering but also seeks to achieve all conditions that permit individuals and communities ready access to fulfillment (Koch and Bjarte 124).
The attainment of the common good is not automatic. It does not just happen. Cooperative efforts by the majority are required in setting up systems that guarantee this. In the midst of the prevailing social and political pluralism, the common good approach can be used in attempting to solve the GMO dilemmas and controversies. Common good ethicists have identified key areas around which the decision to genetically engineer organisms is made for the benefit of all (Barnhill 98).
Virtues vis-à-vis The Vices Of Genetic Modification
Ethics of GM organisms can be developed by asking whether using GM technology on animals and crops erodes virtues, whereas producing vices. Virtuous use of this technology should be for the attainment of humanitarian goals. A good example herein can be cited in the development of golden rice in Asia.
The World Health Organization claims that almost half a million school-age children have vitamin A deficiency (VAD). This leads to millions of deaths, while close to half a million children suffer from blindness attributed to VAD. The creators of Golden Apples approximate that this magic food will consist of more than 60% of the suggested daily vitamin A intake. This is intended to reduce blindness and death associated with Vitamin A deficiency (Robinson 245). This way, GM is seen as a virtuous tool for the attainment of everyone’s good.
However, Filipino communities, for whom this type of rice is intended, have objected to this. They argue that new agricultural technologies are being thrust upon them without clearly understanding their real struggles. Such sentiments are echoed by renowned GMO critics such as Wendell Berry. Wendell and his colleagues assert that GMOs such as the golden rice are attempts to solve problems created by proponents of GMOs. The golden rice is seen as a non-profit enterprise. However, critics such as Wendell term it a Trojan horse. It is a false hope aimed at giving to give GMOs a humanitarian façade, yet it has no real benefit (Regis and Baptiste 199).
Golden rice and other GMOs not only pose undesirable consequences for agriculturalists, the environment, and the world's poorest, but also signify vices of greed, conceit, and supremacy. Instead of humbly working with and caring for the local social, personal, and environmental concerns, commercializing GMOs seeks to attain maximum profit and food market control at the expense of the common good (Budinger and Budinger 261). As a result, the Filipino farmers have destroyed a test golden rice crop. Rice farmers in other Asian countries argue that there is no recognition of local genuine problems and that scientific solutions are being thrown at them without duconsiderationng for morality.
GMOs' impacts on people. The second key area that shapes the common good approach to the GMOs debate is whether they increase negative impacts and how these impacts affect people, communities, other organisms, and the environment. According to Bittma, the principal use for genetic alteration on crops is to create food crops that resist the herbicide glyphosate, a common weed control chemical (67). Further, these crops produce their own internal insecticide, making them less dependent on chemical herbicides.
The use of glyphosate is very common in developed countries as it accrues significant positive benefits, such as lowering the cost of food, thus increasing production. However, research done by the Center for Science in the Public Interest portends that overuse of this technique has led to the emergence of super-weeds and super-pests that resist common herbicides and pesticides. Indeed, there currently are millions of acres of land in the developed world awash with resistant weeds and pests (Regis and Baptiste 211). Some critics actually term glyphosate resistance as a serious epidemic that needs to be stopped. Yet, such critics fail to account for the fact that resistance does not need genetic modification to occur; it commonly occurs through other means, such as natural selection. Nevertheless, there is broad concurrence that extensive use of genetic modification techniques is very much part of the problem of the emergence of resistant species and superorganisms (Stephan 234).
Besides, the greatest profits of GMOs are amassed by large biotech organizations and large-scale farmers. However, this leaves the environment and small-scale farmers with little or no benefit. There are also some benefits accruable to consumers, such as the availability of disease-resistant papayas. Genetic modification has helped farmers farm since it simplifies weed and pest control. This leads to an increase in the quantity of farm output, leading to increased income. In addition, some genetic control methods have led to a reduction in weed and pest populations. According to research work done by GM ethicists from Union of Concerned Scientists, farmers have experienced a significant reduction in labor costs while the exposure of farm workers to pesticides has been reduced (Ho, Li, M, and Cummins 247). However, the Union of Concerned Scientists lamentably notes that genetically modified foodstuffs have no notable added nutritional and health benefits to the consumer.
Researchers at Earth Open Source work proposed a restricted use and distribution of GM technology and methodologies, including farming of GMOs in open lands. It also objects release of GM products into the human and animal food chain without proper research being done on the impending environmental, human, economic, and social impacts. This work corroborates the argument made by the Union of Concerned Scientists by asserting that GM profits flow upstream. Profits only accrue to a small and powerful group of companies as well as entities hinged on that profit. Yet, the greatest weight of its negative implications of GMOs lies on the consumer. Thus, the consumers fail to have the confidence needed to make GMOs universally acceptable and usable.
The assertions made by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the benefits of GMOs are only for economic profiteering. According to Brac and Seuret, the negative effects of GMOs vary depending on who you ask (56). But scientists contend that GM foodstuffs are safe for people to eat. Dangers to consumer health become a non-issue. Yet, a certain section of opponents of genetic alteration asserts that long-lasting health effects of these organisms are somewhat uncertain and mostly undefined because very little data exists to that effect. Further, little data exists on the consequences of prolonged use of GMOs by current and future generations. This is a grey area that needs further study.s
Besides this, other issues surrounding GMOs cannot be ignored. Proponents of genetic interference in organisms contend that, despite the fact that these organisms are safe for humans, other detrimental consequences exist. These include issues related to do with patenting laws and how they impact farmers and researchers, research integrity, or whether the risk of contamination of other organisms by GMOs exists (Ho, Lim, and Cummins 265).
All through this argument, it is clear that the GMO debates largely skirt the possibility of whether there is something inherently disagreeable with GM foods and crops. Issues that deal with the management of risks accrued from GMOs are not given appropriate attention. However, if the risks can be managed, GMOs do not pose such ethical problems as we see them to.
Fallacious generalizations. There are other pertinent issues that morality can help determine the appropriateness of GMOs. Suffice it to say that genetic modification technology is just a device. Any such device can be deployed for a good or ill cause. The Union of Concerned Scientists is among the numerous groups highlighting this concern. The National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council upholds this view and stresses the crucial boundary between genetic modification methodologies and any specific genetically modified organism. According to scientists at the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council, the major problem within this industry is that GMOs are treated as one (Ho, Lim, and Cummins 193). This assumption ignores the basic truth that each organism is genetically unique. As such, it interrelates differently with the surrounding environment. Much of the anti-GMO criticism is attached to glyphosate resistance. It is therefore wrong to paint GMOs, both current and in the developmental phase, with the same brush. It is against the common good approach.
This line of argument is problematic because it sees GMOs as linear, while in the real sense, it is multifaceted. Advocates say genetically altered organisms offer security in the form of a reliable food source, especially in a world faced by imminent climate change. GMO antagonists counter this by arguing proliferation of GMOs increases our dependency on unsustainable, chemical-supported farming (Brac and Seuret 143). Looking at Monsanto’s Roundup Ready cereals, it’s easy to understand these fears. However, there are disease-resistant foodstuffs such as papayas and plums that yield better produce. Some genetically modified pigs produce manure holding lesser amounts of phosphorus; phosphorus causes environmental damage. There are varieties of GM rice containing beta-carotene, while genetic alterations in oranges have led to citrus-greening-resistant fruits. While there are numerous examples of GMOs that portend profit for all, each of them has to be assessed independently.
Perhaps, based on the assertions mentioned above, genetically modifying organisms for the common good needs to focus more on the specific organism and not the technique of genetic alteration. By doing this, the GMO discussion moves to a more helpful course. Yet, this is not easily achievable. The drive to have a GM landscape that’s richly inhabited by beneficial organisms has to contend with the fact that there will be seemingly insurmountable hurdles. Yet, opposition to these organisms is that they place power, money, and regulation of our food resources under the control of a few big companies. Equalizing the markets for everyone’s good will have to find ways to circumvent the fact that only a few multinationals have the financial and knowledge resources to exploit these markets (Budinger and Budinger 327). Attaining the equilibrium between safety, ethics, humanity, and innovations in genetic alterations will be a hard task.
Morality of nature
There are also fears about the ethical integrity of the organization itself and the question of whether genetic modification of organisms represents a wrongful treatment of the organism’s dignity and integrity. This opinion arises from the idea that focus should be on the organism instead of the genetic modification technique. It is based on the opinion that nature has its own dignity and interests outside those of its human residents. Such opinions are not willingly acknowledged due to their abstract and mystical hints. Naturalistic approach can lead to naturalistic fallacy, the false allegation that morality can be derived from facts of nature. Good examples of naturalistic fallacy include: (1) the idea that raw milk is better than processed milk due to its naturalness, and (2) that since humans are meant to stand, standing desks are better than sitting desks. The same fallacy is applied by critics of genetically modified organisms who argue that they are immoral since they are unnatural.
Conclusion
Maybe we are not so much troubled by the indispensable dignity of rice or wheat. What appears to discourage its universal acceptance is (1) the modification done on organisms and the moral implications, and (2) the controversies and dilemmas on how a common good approach can be attained through universal adoption of GMOs. While discussing GM animals, the natural integrity and dignity of the organism appear to be a more compelling reason to control scientific interference with genes. Crucially important is how communities perceive the morality of GMOs against their needs. These perceptions must be viewed alongside scientifically verified facts on the merits and demerits of these organisms. GMOs are both good and bad. Genetic modification is like a weapon. It can be used for the security of people. It can also be used as a weapon for its destructive power. It is the ethics of the common good for all that must inform the decision whether to genetically modify foods or not.
Works Cited
Barnhill, Anne. Food, Ethics, and Society: An Introductory Text with Readings. , 2017.
Brac, de P. R. A., and Franck Seuret. Brave New Seeds: The Threat of Transgenic Crops to Farmers in the South. London: Zed Books, 2012.
Budinger, Thomas F, and Miriam D. Budinger. Ethics of Emerging Technologies: Scientific Facts and Moral Challenges. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2006.
Bittman, Mark. A Bone to Pick: The Good and Bad News About Food, with Wisdom, Insights, and Advice on Diets, Food Safety, GMOs, Farming, and More, 2015.
Grunewald, Wim, and Jo Bury. The GGGMORevolution 2015. Print.
Koch, Bernhard A., and Bjarte Askeland. Economic Loss Caused by Genetically Modified Organisms: Liability and Redress for the Adventitious Presence of Gmos in Non-Gm Crops. Wien: Springer, 2013.
Stephan, Hannes R. Cultural Politics and the Transatlantic Divide Over 2015.
Regis, Natalie, and Tracey Baptiste. Genetically Modified Crops and Food. New York: Britannica Educational Publishing, 2016. Internet resource.
Robinson, Claire, Michael Antoniou, and John Fagan. GMO Myths and Truths: A Citizen's Guide to the Evidence on the Safety and Efficacy of Genetically Modified Crops and Foods. , 2015. Print.
Ho, Mae-Wan, Li C. Lim, and Joe Cummins. GMO Free: Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply. Ridgefield, Conn: Vital Health Pub, 2014. Print.
