Food and agriculture industry reels under a significant moral issue, i.e., pursuing with genetically modified crops and food products. These food products are produced by inserting foreign genes into plants, animals and microorganisms. As such, environmentalists, animal-rights proponents, and socialists have raised various concerns ranging from possible harms to ecosystem, environmental catastrophe, risks of food security for future generations, and the promotion of exploitative science. Some ethicists and Philosophers have called it unnatural, a way towards commodification of life, harmful to other living beings, and playing with God. On the other hand, supporters approve GM crops on accounts of increased productivity, disease control, pest-resistance, reduced risk of weather vagaries and the like. This paper aims to analyze ethical arguments and applying ethical theories related to the controversy.
The ethical argument of the commodification of life falls under Kantian ethics as well as the Rights theory that consider human beings as an end in itself, not a means to any other end. Ethicists dispute that genetic engineering treats life like objects; life is too pure to be bought and sold for commercial purposes. As such, it goes against the spirits of Rights theory that imparts equal value to human beings and other living things. Kant, being a deontologist, advocated making ethical decisions considering the actions itself, not the consequences. Opponents of genetic engineering, thus, did not consider GM foods to be morally justified for its beneficial consequences as they considered the process of creating GM crops ethically unjustifiable.
Though the argument is sound, it equally holds good to ordinary agricultural practices. Exchanging animals and crops for cash testifies that every culture in the world has been indulged in commodification of lives. Leon Kass (1988) argued that humans have dehumanized themselves so much that they should be careful about their reactions against practices like human cloning. The author, however, does not find sound logic behind this argument. If marketing of non-GM wheat is accepted, there is no reason to oppose the commercialization of GM wheat. Likewise, if scientists have treated viruses and plants previously, there should not be any objection in treating DNA.
Utilitarianism ( as propounded by Bentham and Mill), however, clings to a different view than Kantian. The doctrine considers an action to be right if it benefits the majority. In contrast to Kantian, they look at the consequences, not the actions. Thus, ethicists holding utilitarian approach would consider genetic engineering of food morally justified if the benefits outweigh the risks involved. For example, scientists have created GM products that carry better nutritional value than traditional foods. Here, risks are lower compared to the benefits; so utilitarians would not have ethical issues. However, this approach switches the position if risks involved are considered to outweigh the benefits. The author opines that viewing merits and demerits may involve subjectivity and; it may be difficult to universally apply the principles of utilitarianism.
Another ethical issue involving genetic engineering relates to tinkering with telos ( purpose) of organisms i.e. playing with God. Teleological ethics, like deontology, focuses on consequences and negates all actions that may result in erroneous outcomes. Both of the views, utilitarianism and teleology, thus fall under the broader category, i.e. consequentialism( focusing on the consequences). Philosophers supporting teleological ethics believe that the creator( God) has instilled a purpose and design in nature, and genetic engineering changes that purpose( telos) causing profound implications.
Opponents of this argument argue that genetic engineering, though, alters the intrinsic characteristic of organisms, it is still not the only area where intrinsic characteristics of nature have been tampered. Speaking in historical context, humans have tried to control nature in many ways including irrigation projects, sanitation, artificial rain, and the like. However, it is debatable that to what extent humans can legitimately control over the nature. The author( of this essay) opines that considering this argument in relation with other human activities weakens its logic. It is, though, true that GM foods testify the human intervention natural and intrinsic characteristics of organisms and in that sense, it does alter with the telos.
A close analysis of these ethical theories( deontology and consequentialism) reveals that ethicists are concerned with wider social implications of GM foods, though they base their arguments on different points. While Kantian is concerned about the dignity of humanity, utilitarians worry about the overall merits and less bother about the process involved. The approach of Kantian ethics seems quixotic and lop-sided because it fails to consider the benefits of the process. Likewise, the argument of intelligent design raised by teleology finds lack of support given ongoing human intervention in nature since historical times. Utilitarianism, by contrast, is more practical as far as there the actions involved in producing GM foods do not involve a high risk to animals, humans and other living things.
Considering the inappropriateness of action-oriented and result-oriented theories, virtue ethics, can be applied well to the ethical dilemma posed by genetic engineering of crops and foods. This branch judges choices and actions to determine the path of a virtuous person in a specific condition or scenario. Main concepts applied in virtue ethics include human virtues as compassion, honesty, and humility and vices as dishonesty, arrogance, and cruelty. Thus, the virtue ethicist would respond to GM dilemma on a case by case basis rather than concluding just on the basis of actions or consequences. This approach, the author opines, would suit more to solving GM dilemma.
Succinctly put, it is quite complicated to derive a conclusion on the ethical debate related to GM foods. Researchers and Scientists, across the world, are involved in conducting studies and gathering facts about the topic that affects almost everybody on the earth. Most of the developed nations including Japan and Australia have imposed partial or complete bans on production and sales of GM crops and food products. Critics have argued that genetic engineering disrupts the natural functioning of neighboring genes that may lead to contamination of food products. Supporters, on the other hand, do have their points in favor of pursuing with it. Given equally strong lobbies, the issue has gained due significance in recent years that carries ramifications on global politics as well. For example, there are increasing pressures from North American business groups on EU and Britain to open up borders for importing GM foods from them. As world superpowers are divided on the issue, there can be significant international, economical, and trade issues if the world does not boils down to a conclusion.
Ethicists do have their views to support or negate GM foods, but ethical standards may not be a sufficient reason to approving it or denying it. The primary reason is that moral views raised against genetic engineering are also applicable on other human practices as well. As such, there does not seem any strong reason to target the process based on ethical arguments and theories. As ethics involves a lot of subjectivities, there is a need of further research to fetch facts about the outcomes and underlying risks.
References
Berry, R. M. (2013). The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Routledge.
Callahan, D., & Jennings, B. (2002). Ethics and Public Health: Forging a Strong Relationship. A,erican Journal of Public Health , 169-176.
Cole-Turner, R. (1993). The New Genesis : Theology and Genetic Revolution. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press.
Freedman, J. (2009). Genetically Modified Food: How Biotechnology is Changing what We Eat. The Rosen Publishing Group.
Harvey, F. (2014, September 5). EU Under Pressure to Allow Food Imports From US and Canada. Retrieved October 10, 2014, from the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/05/eu-gm-food-imports-us-canada
Kass, L. (1988). Towards a Moral Natural Science: Biology and Human Affairs. New York: The Free Press.
Nelkin, D., & Lindee, M. (1995). The DNA Mystique: The Gene as Cultural Icon. New York: Freeman.
