Introduction
The world has witnessed the existence of food riot over the years. The most recent was the food global crisis that occurred sometime between 2007 and 2008 and affected some 22 countries and caused drastic changes worldwide. The cause that was cited with the incident was that the population growth had outpaced the food production both in a worldwide scale. However, economists have cited diverse causes of the food crisis particularly in pricing. The public only paid attention to the issue when the media highlighted the riot on food production and acquirement but the crisis is already working long time ago prior to its media recognition. The reasons though of this economic phenomenon put the international sectors in an endless debate. With this concern, some companies under the food industry, particularly the biotech companies, put a “heroic” attempt to put end in this crisis by providing genetically modified food in order to feed hungry nations. However, critical issues ensued with their act particularly the ethics that they may have failed to observe. Subtracting the negative effects of their practice to the advantages, do biotech companies are really helping the world to feed the starving nations?
Ethical Theories
1. Ethics of Monsanto. While the controversial practice of Monsanto Company became more popular in India and in other developing countries, the company has its main headquarters in Missouri in the United States of America. Monsanto is a multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology and is under the public trade. Some concern sectors have cited various ethical issues surrounding the operations of Monsanto Company, however, there are two controversies to where the company is known for – the “seed piracy” and the “farmers' suicide.”Many were looking at different angles pertaining the unethical issues that the company is practicing. But they failed to see that the mere operation of the company, despite the many proven incidents of malpractice and harm it brought to the people of the land where they are operating, is already a big slap in the face of the policymakers. The company has successfully sent the message to the concerned groups that its power is beyond their policies and regulations. To be certain, the issue about seed piracy was the plant breeding method that Monsanto had executed in order to produce significant and yield better strains needed for the cotton production. In a related issue, the farmers of Jhabua found themselves being severely persecuted by the company when the crops failed to produce and had died due to drought in 2009. The failure in production was due to lack of rain and the high price of the cotton, yet Monsanto never acknowledged these facts.
2. “Substantial Equivalence.” Monsanto Company believes in substantial equivalence and they apply it in their production. This belief of the company reflects how low the company values life forms. This synthesis can be deducted from their principle that genetically modified organisms are equivalent substantially to its natural counterparts. Groups of biotechnology companies had brought out the term “substantial equivalence” to justify the need to proceed with genetically engineered crops sometime in 1990s. The term was borrowed from the definition of a class of new medical devices that do not differ materially from its original version that was provided by the US Food and Drug Administration of USFDA. While this may do good to medical devices, some sectors are concern that it will be harmful if applied in food. The state of being “substantially equivalent” has found to be unjustified as well since there are differences in the nutritional value of genetically modified and non-genetically modified food. An example cited by a study conducted in Brazil found out that between a genetically modified plant and non-genetically modified plant there is a difference of over 32 counts of abnormal presence of different proteins in the genetically modified plants – they are either absent, present, and regulated or deregulated. This means that the substantial equivalent does not meet the accurate details that can be found from the original organisms and deemed significant to human health.
3. Ethical Issue: Policy Maker working for Private Industry. The Federal employees were restricted into three different grounds under the “revolving door” type of service. The restrictions implemented among the federal employees aim to rid of possible corruption of interrelationship between private sector and public service. The three grounds that the employees are restricted into are the following:
- The Government to Lobbyist Revolving Door – This is usually about the former lawmakers and government employees use of inside connections and knowledge to adjust the policy in favor of their clients within the industry.
- The Government to Industry Revolving Door – This is usually about the public officials such as the lawmakers who are moving in to private industry employment in order purposely compromise government's policy and contract by utilizing their public service and experience.
- The Industry to Government Reverse Revolving Door – The appointment of leaders in the industries maybe influenced by the key posts in federal agencies. The tendency is that the may serve the federal posts that appointed them while the lawmakers may be adjusting the policies in favor of the interests of the industry leaders.
These grounds are clearly expressing the unethical practice of policy makers involved in private industries.
4. Genetic Pollution Concept. The genetic pollution occurs when hybridization process takes place and surpass the amount of its product from the target controlled number. Genetic pollution can come in form of animals and plants including its domesticated and feral varieties of the genes. The effect of genetic pollution, despite the likeness of the products to their natural counterparts, is overwhelming the certain industry with weak and inferior versions of meat and plants that serve as food and imposes threat to human health. Several concerned sectors have realized the importance of maintaining purebred species as compared with the need to genetically modified version for reproduction value and quality of life entitled both to organisms of food and consumer.
5. GE Crops beneficial to farmers? Biotech companies are putting their best efforts to come up with friendly campaign that their operations and services are the answers to the struggling farms and livelihood of many farmers for years. In 1999, the International Agricultural Research and the US National Academy of Science held a conference that was participated by international scientists, policy makers, and NGOs at the World Bank headquarter in order to discuss the plausibility of biotechnology as a mean to resolve poverty and protect the environment or it will bring further damage to the society. It can not be denied that the discoveries and inventions performed under biotechnology experimentations are groundbreaking and a leap towards human intelligence. Through biotech, it is now possible for poultry to produce eggs without the traditional/periodical mating process. Through biotech, plants and crops can be multiplied into abundant numbers as needed. However, perfecting biotechnological product remains elusive for now as it still needs improvement. Nutritional value, quality of life, and state of being are the areas that remained inferior and needed improvement in the process of biotechnology. While the debate about the matter may be endless as private industry like Monsanto Company would never yield to any local policies, there are already strong points presented by the opposition of why the practice must be declared unethical. The stronger points are attributed to the published cases that were effects of biotech companies' operations such as the Monsanto in India. Washington officials during that time were even backing up the advocacy of biotech companies to eliminate poverty, however, they cited the lack of support of other significant groups that hindered the agenda to materialize. The non-favoring groups were reasoning the damaging effects on human health, the social effects, and effects to workers thus their reluctance to back up the biotech companies' operations and existence.
6. Monsanto's ethical issues in India. They say Monsanto is greedy because it is acquiring all the seeds in India, but until now everything is unpublished – Monsanto still operates and many are still getting victimized. Perhaps the company's used of technology as their main forte is to diver the real issue of ownership and controlling of seeds. Their unethical practice is masked behind the patent and copyright of seeds they are religiously practicing. At present, concerned groups have formed that served as advocates of the workers that is working under Monsanto and they aim to give support to their “victims” and save them prom possible suicide by giving them farming livelihood using organic seeds.
7. Biotech and Developing Countries. A former director of National Institutes of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology in Philippines, Reynaldo de la Cruz, had seen a promising result of operation of biotech companies in developing countries but implied that it all depends on the intention of the companies if they are sincere with their aim to eliminate poverty or they will be another Monsanto in India. “The small famers and the fisherfolks should be the main beneficiaries of biotechnology research and development, if biotech companies would really like to help the developing countries,” de la Cruz has said in a written statement during the World Bank Conference. Philippines is a developing country.
Conclusion
Monsanto and other biotech companies would like to feed the world particularly the developing countries, and most especially the poverty-stricken areas. However, ulterior motivations maybe a factor to consider in assessing the performance of these companies. The very practice of substantial equivalent alone is already questionable, much more for the companies that operates in such service. While, some of them maybe sincere in helping the poor, the unethical issues surrounding their operation maybe telling them otherwise. Thus, it is a challenge for every biotech companies to operate flawlessly and with full compliance of both local and international policies.
References
“Revolving Door: Restrictions on Federal Employees Becoming Lobbyists.” (2014). Clean Up Washigton. Web. Retrieved 10 Jun 2014 from http://www.cleanupwashington.org/lobbying/page.cfm?pageid=40
Arndt, Michael. (2010). “Monsanto v. Food Inc. over how to feed the world.” Bloomberg Business Week. Retrieved 10 Jun 2014 from http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2010/01/anyone_whos_see.html
Knight, Danielle. (2014). “Biotech, help or harm?” Third World Network. Retrieved 10 Jun 2014 from http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/harm-cn.htm
Landau, Russ Shafer. The Fundamentals Ethics, 2nd Ed. ISBN: 978-0-19-977355-8.
Pringle, Peter. Food Inc.: From Mendel to Monsanto - The Promises and Perils of the Biotech Harvest. ISBN: 978-0-7432-999291-1.
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma. Young Reader's Edition. ISBN: 978-0-19-999291-1.
Thompson, Paul B. (2013). “Food and Agricultural Biotechnology: Ethical Issues Behind Policy Choice.” Purdue University. Retrieved 10 Jun 2014 from http://www.iatp.org/files/Food_and_Agricultural_Biotechnology_Ethical_Is.htm
