ID Number
Introduction
Food industry is the largest and the most critical part of our society. As a matter of fact, it has already reached an estimated sales of four trillion dollars globally in 2002 (Regmi and Gehlhar, 2005). Moreover, the food industry is the main producer of nutrition for the entire population. Dell’Aquila and Cioffi (2004) focused on fresh vegetables and fruits and discusses that EU rules are counterproductive by increasing neither the import nor the export of quality products. Vancauteren and De Frahan (2006) estimated a model called the structural gravity, and stated that bringing together of food policies in the EU has formed a number of intra-EU trade.
The Future of Food is a documentary that provides a thorough examination into the troubling truth that conceals patented, unlabeled and genetically engineered foods that fills the shelves of grocery stores for many years now. The film expresses the farmer’s opinions in disparity with the food sectors and reiterates the effects of new technology on their livelihoods. The farmers also expresses how political and market forces are transforming the foods that people eat. The farmers are held accountable for the crops they produce that are being attacked by company-owned genes. Criticisms direct on the cost of the global food sector on people’s lives. It states that global companies are driving farmers away from their land and that monoculture farming may result to worldwide reliance of the people of food companies. Further, the farmers fear that there is an increased danger of ecological calamities brought about by diminished biological diversity. For instance, Mexican corns are being substituted by corn from the United States. The Future of Food discusses the fear of causing big losses to food systems locally and claims that the genes will soon become unavailable to rescue the global agriculture.
The health effects, as well as government policies, are some of the factors that triggered globalization and the reason behind several worried individuals concerning the introduction of genetically engineered crops into the people’s food supply. The documentary likewise explores some of the proven alternatives in farming such as replacement of genetically engineered foods into an organic as well as sustainable agriculture. The Future of Foods brings out in the open some of the prevalent problems that are not recognized or explained to the people buying the products yet that it is performing a big role in the people’s health and even in the stability of the global agriculture and the farmers.
The problem of patents on people was a problem that existed back to the ancestors. They discovered that patenting an organism was immoral. In the 1990 case involving Diamond versus Chakrabarty, the court founded the patentability of the living organization. At present, organizations are able to patent everything from plants, seeds, and even human embryonic stem cells. Hence, the question arises whether it is ethical to patent genes or not. Scientific advancements and developments in technology have paved the way to increasing social and moral issues of substantial complexity. Recent developments in genetic engineering, screening, testing, and assisted reproduction permitted humans to make novel choices concerning human procreation and the establishment of healthy society. These developments also raised ethical and legal concerns that were never before taken into consideration.
The Human Genome Project which was federally funded and completed a decade ago attempted to encode the actual number of genes yet failed to reach a conclusion. Researches since the draft genome sequence was published have produced extensively varied projections. In 2004, The International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium headed by the Department of Energy in the United States and the Human Genome Research Institute starting working on genes encoding. Interestingly enough, it was estimated that there over a hundred thousand of genes to encode; nevertheless, the Consortium has lessen the number to approximately twenty-thousand protein-coding genes in the human genome and recognized two thousand DNA segments that are believed to protein-coding genes. Human genomes are approximately 99.9% identical thus concluding humans as far more similar than different.
At the moment, there are no policies in the United States to assess the reliability and accuracy of genetic testing. Merely a few states have developed some regulatory guidelines. This inadequacy in guidelines may be specifically difficult in light of some companies that have begun marketing test kits to the public. Such kits make declarations that they do not merely test for the illness, but likewise signify how to manufacture medicine, foods, and vitamins to a person’s genetic makeup.
Companies such as Monsanto have also utilized patents to local farmers and urged them into changing their genetically transformed seeds or they would be paying fines in court cases if their plants are discovered to be present in their lands. For instance, in a lawsuit involving Monsanto Canada versus Schmeiser in which the Supreme Court opted to declare that the farmers were the ones accountable in protecting their crops from the potential discovery of patented seeds. Such a task was apparently impossible, taking into account the way living organisms disperse and grow. Even more worrisome than patents and the manner they are forcing farmers to lose their jobs and creating a monopoly in the crop business are what the patents are trying to protect; the genetically modified organisms or GMOs.
In gaining advantage of the genetic code, various research studies have been successful in associating DNA sequences from diverse organisms through the use of molecular biology methods and to incorporate unknown DNA in plant life. A genetically modified organism has its genetic material modified or changed. A genetically engineered organism is altered through the use of approaches that enable the direct transfer or eradication of genes in a particular organism. Genetically modified organisms manufacture proteins which present new features. This transpires by enhancing the protecting of crops used in agriculture, generating the most favorable yield, and augmenting endurance of crops in an unfavorable environment. This permits escalated quality and quantity of crops, a reduction in the cost of crops that have been manufactured and increased advantage to the surroundings. This has likewise enabled the plant crop to possess increased nutritional value which aids individuals who continue to exist with only a single crop to accomplish in the nutritional quota.
In the 90s, the first food products that have been genetically modified were accepted by the United States organizations and these products include corn, soybeans, and tomatoes. From that time on, debates and controversies have already become part of foods that have been genetically modified including their impacts on the health of people and the surroundings in the long term. Environmental damage has also been an issue including the allergies that GMO may bring to the human race. As an outcome of such hullabaloo between genetically modified foods and foods that have not been genetically modified, food products are delivered in the United States and are branded accordingly. Food products are examined to deny or confirm the existence of genetically modified organisms; sporadically, food contamination happens when food examination is inaccurate.
Moral Relativism
Moral relativism asserts that there is no such thing as absolute moral law that is applicable to all individuals. Rather there is a law that espouses the idea of having a qualified perception of morals particularly in the aspects of moral practice in which situational and personal encounters dictate the person’s moral position. At present, moral relativism has been linked to the evolution theory. The only choices available in moral relativism are as follows: the natural universe, the individual, and the culture. For others, they consider morality to be a personal choice which means that they have the choice to kill and eat animals and eating animals is included in the natural order of things. While indeed morality is a personal choice, it should not be forgotten that as human beings, people are accountable to one another. Hence, letting people eat genetically engineered foods that have lots of chemicals and may endanger health is a big question to morality.
Consequentialism
The moral theories of consequentialists are teleological in that they intend to emphasize on the primary purposes as well as execute an assessment relating to the ethical consequences of a person’s actions based on the development happening on that state. For instance, when a company decides to apply genetic engineering in the crops they produce, consequentialism dictates that the company must evaluate the outcome of using such procedures.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is the most popular among all forms of consequentialism. This concept describes moral principles in the basis of the intensification of the remaining expected utility for all groups concerned by an action or decision. Even though methods of utilitarianism have been placed at the forefront and discussed way back ancient periods, the contemporary idea is most every so often linked with the British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806- 1873) who established the idea from a simple pleasure-seeking variety emphasized by his advisor Jeremy Bentham (1748- 1832). As best evidently indicated by Mill, the rudimentary norm of utilitarianism is: Actions are correct to the extent that they have a tendency to encourage the greatest good for the highest number. Unquestionably, it remains uncertain regarding what makes up "the greatest good." According to Mill, not everything about pleasure was in the same way, commendable. He described "the good" in terms of happiness and differentiated not only quantitatively but at the same time qualitatively amid numerous methods of pleasure. In whichever case, the norm defines the ethical right in the terms of an impartial, substantial good. The fact is to turn the idea "scientific," and the utility norm is an effort to connect the gap concerning pragmatic evidences and a normative supposition--an easy cost/benefit examination is suggested. In the case of Monsanto Company, the need to examine their decisions in producing foods or acquiring foods and putting burdens on farmers must be carefully studied in terms of what is morally and ethically right.
Kantian Ethics
According to Immanuel Kant, the basis for morality is freedom. Kant defined freedom as the capacity and the ability to impart laws one’s own will. Accordingly, when actions are governed by needs, some circumstances are determined by those things or beings outside the environment. When humans are on this state it means that they are in a state of “heteronomy.” But when humans are the ones that determine what law to apply, then people are in “autonomy.” They are simply using their reasons to determine which laws to use. Schmeiser is a farmer who prefers using organic rather than using patented GM. The court ruled that indeed Schmeiser was using the products of Monsanto. Schmeiser claims that perhaps the crops were just contaminated. Kantian’s ethics would assert the decision of the court determines the outcome of the lawsuit filed by Monsanto vs. Schmeiser. No matter what assertion Schmeiser would have about not using the patented product of Monsanto, it is still the rules of the court that would prevail.
Social Contract Theory
Social contract theory is the belief that people’s moral as well as political obligations rely on an agreement or a contract to create the society where they live. Socrates made use of social contract to explain why he should remain in prison and accept the penalty imposed upon him. The same theory applies to the decision of the court on Monsanto vs. Schmeiser case.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics emphasizes the one’s personal characters, virtues, and morals. The decision that a person makes is a reflection of his own virtues. Hence, Monsanto Company’s decision mirrors the virtues and morals of the management.
Conclusion
Food ethics emphasizes the need to protect crops and ensure their safety when distributed to the people. Food ethics entails giving importance to moral values in making decisions. Monsanto Company is unethical in its practices because it patents the seeds and making the farmers accountable for it when discovered.
References
Free From Harm. (2012). When Moral Relativism Becomes a Justification to Exploit Animals. Retrieved 7 June 2014, from http://freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-ethics/when-moral-relativism-becomes-a-justification-to-exploit-animals/
Harman, G. (1975). Moral relativism defended. The Philosophical Review, 3--22.
JJ, C., Quinton, A., & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism; for and against. Cambridge Univ Press.
O'neill, O. (2007). Kantian ethics. Principles Of Health Care Ethics, Second Edition, 73--77.
Seedhunter.com,. (2014). Seed Hunter | A Documentary about finding seeds that will save the world from a global food shortage. Retrieved 7 June 2014, from http://www.seedhunter.com/
Thefutureoffood.com,. (2014). The Future of Food. Retrieved 7 June 2014, from http://www.thefutureoffood.com/
