Gary Comstock’s Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods offers an argument for genetic modification of crops and if it is a process that is morally justified. Genetically modified crops are “derived from microorganisms, plants, or animals that have been manipulated at the molecular level to provide them with traits that farmers or consumers desire.” (Comstock, 1) An important thing to note here is that these manipulations include foreign genes, that could never be obtained naturally by the plants. Comstock offers his perspective on this modification and how ethically justified it is.

The first argument presented in the debate on the ethical objections to GM is the possibility of harm to humans or other living things. He uses three ethical principles in this analysis, rights theory which states that we treat humans as autonomous and not as a means to an end. Utilitarian theory which says we must act in ways that maximizes happiness and minimizes consequences. Lastly, virtue theory which states actions must be justified as if we act as a just, fair, and good person. He says that in a debate of consensus or compromise we still might reach an unjust solution in that we cannot rely on it to always provide the ethically sound and morally correct argument.

Comstock then turns to analyse the ethical issues that are involved. He introduced Extrinsic and Intrinsic objections and says that it is critical that we separate these two in the discussions of ethics. Extrinsic objections focus on “the potential harms consequent upon the adoption of GMOs”  (Comstock, 5) these are the anticipated results that may or may not come about but make the argument that the possibility of them coming about should give enough reason to abandon GM technology. Comstock offers his opinion, that these are real concerns which require serious responsibilities however, he does not think that this is a significant enough argument to implement a permanent ban. He then offers intrinsic objections in which he says are more valid in defending a permanent ban, intrinsic objections “allege that the process of making GMOs is objectionable in itself… the “unnaturalness objection.” (Comstock, 5) But then he continues to point out this is contradictory to a lot of other research in agriculture and would be harmful to terminate all of it. Comstock offers a couple ways to measure harms but ultimately ends up concluding that we do not have the capacity to conclude that the harms will outweigh the benefits.

Comstock offers a reason for why we care so much about genetically modified food. It is a simple explanation that simply says we are cautious about the things that we put in our mouths. It is a simple yet rational concern, he goes on to give another good point that the food we have is working for us and what do we have to gain from changing it. Comstock understands the importance and gives understanding as to why humans ultimately care so much, this in my opinion assigns moral significance to it. If he acknowledges the importance of human choice in what they eat we need to be able to give this ability to everyone.

Comstock concludes with the claim that it is ethically justifiable to pursue genetically modified crops and foods. The benefits will outweigh harms, in terms of human rights the people of various countries can choose to adopt or not, and lastly “encouraging discovery, innovation and careful regulation.” (Comstock, 15 )

I agree with Comstock and his approach on this issue, however, I think that he is missing a ethically important point in this debate. When we speak of theories of Contractarianism where moral rights come about from what is agreed upon, which I think he uses in his argument. But also his Utilitarian approach, where he is looking for the better off solution. In these scenarios the minorities and oppressed can and do lose out on their opinions and regulations are imposed on them instead. Comstock touches on this briefly with his analyses of religion and minority groups however, his argument doesn’t breach the scope of the problem and he still misses the issue of ethics of imposing GM foods on them. Comstock offers an opinion and describes many reasoning for why people care and should care, what we eat and what we let our kids eat is important. It would be ethically unreasonable to then take away the options for minority groups based upon a majority.

Comstock, Gary. “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods.” Food Ethics, 2010

Alison