Gary Comstock argues why he changed his mind to accept genetically modified crops in his article “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods.”
Many people worry about genetically modified crops because of their potential threat to humans, animals, and entire ecosystems.
He calls these objections against GM crops because of “anticipated results” as Extrinsic objections. He argues that these potential threats can be controlled and avoided and should not be a reason to ban the technology. He also introduced other common complaints to GM crops like “To engage in ag biotech is to play God” and “To engage in ag biotech is to commodify life.” He refuted them for good reasons. At the end of the article, Comstock believes GM crops are morally acceptable If we use GM crops carefully and responsibly.
Genetic technology, like any technology invented by humans, is risky. In the project of scientific progress, we should make bold assumptions and be more careful to verify them. GM foods are a potential technology that could help people in many resource-poor areas gain better access to healthy and nutritious food. I agree with Comstock that we should not morally reject GM food if it is validated systematically and scientifically with the benefits outweigh the risks. But I can’t deny that the potential threat could be enormous. Before reading this article, I, like many others concerned about GM technology, was particularly sensitive to negative coverage. Fear of the unknown (or, to put it more positively, caution) is innate in humans. Throughout evolution, man has stood out from the crowd, not because he has strong limbs and sharp teeth, but because he has developed intelligence. Wisdom itself begins with the search for the unknown. Curiosity and caution about the unknown are ingrained in our genes. Comstock refers to this fear of unknown risk as a precautional response. A large part of his article is devoted to explaining how he thinks precautional response may affect public opinion on genetically modified foods. I agreed with the most about Comstock’s arguments that people’s reactions to GM crops in food abundance countries may affect people’s conditions where food is scarce. The public’s precautional response to GM food will cause bias and leads the public to believe rumors that have no scientific basis. The social backlash against GM crops could affect the development of GM technology in these developed countries. In developed countries, the cost of rejectingGM crops is relatively small compared to undeveloped countries(Advanced economic and agricultural strength allowed their citizens to have abundant food choices). Some developing countries may be in desperate need of GM technology, and their people may lack food or vitamins. Halting or delaying the development of GM technology would indeed harm their interests.
Comstock makes a very scary but possible assumption “freedom of speech may risk losing an opportunity to help some of the world’s most vulnerable.” Indeed, free speech does lead to the free spread of rumors, which is also one of the significant disadvantages of free speech. Therefore, I think the government and the public need to make appropriate free speech restrictions to reduce the destructive consequences of rumors. One might argue that such limits undermine the right to free speech, but as with GM technology and other technologies, freedom without limits leads to the direst results.
Now, My attitude to GM crops changed from Skeptical and conservative to cautious and optimistic. The reason for optimism is that gm foods have not yet been found to be harmful, despite widespread criticism. I am cautious because it is new, and societies need time to learn more about it and accept it. Further, there is no good or bad technology, just as gunpowder can make beautiful fireworks and cruel wars. Transgenic technology is now widely used in biopharmaceuticals. Since it is possible to make drugs, it is also possible to make drugs. It has nothing to do with technology, but with the people who use it. Only by accepting it can we make better use of it and let it benefit us.
– Dengnan
References
Comstock, G. (2010). Ethics and genetically modified foods. In Food ethics (pp. 49-66). Springer, New York, NY.
My feelings were the same at the end of this article too. Upon reading Comstock, I too was cautiously optimistic about genetically modifying plants and less so animals. I agree that solving issues of scarcity and need through genetic modification, as in two plants instead of one from small fields, makes sense (even cents which further save lives). I am also ambivalent about the long terms effects as well as just how invasionary is genetic modification.
I was, however, a little more concerned where genetic modification of animals is concerned. Comstock seems deliberately vague on this point. I also wondered what his own ethical approach was in this. Dane Scott in “The Technological Fix” called much of Comstock’s thinking instrumental. He says we address social problems with instrumental solutions without fixing the social problems. I agreed with him too. But your comment reminds me but again that sometimes that is all we can do and the fix’s are not without consequences and responsibilities. This is not really a bad thing only more issues for us to consider and reconsider, etc. That being said, I am optimistic again and I strongly advocate caution too as far as approach goes and even our optimism…
Tammy
Hello Dengnan,
I think your post is very well-written. You mentioned Comstock’s main point, that is, although transgenic technology has many potential risks, it can be eliminated, and these reasons cannot prevent the development of transgenic technology. I very much agree with this view. Even if many people who are in touch with GM food for the first time will be skeptical about this technology, there are also many problems that need to be tested for a longer time. However, what people cannot ignore is the potential help of genetically modified food to the development of agriculture in the future. Genetically modified food may also bring many benefits, such as improving productivity and saving people from the food crisis.
As you mentioned in the posting, “freedom of speech may risk losing an opportunity to help some of the worlds most vulnerable,” Freedom of speech sometimes affects people’s behavior and causes some bad consequences, but every coin has two sides. Freedom of speech also makes people treat some actions more carefully. For instance, when a topic is focused on public opinions, it brings both topic and attention, many legal amendments are based on news reports. So, I think we can get some valuable opinions by analyzing the disagreements mentioned in Comstock’s article, and then thinking about the reasons behind it. This is also a new thinking direction to change people’s attitudes towards genetically modified food.
Xinyu
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post Dengnan!
Thank you for shedding light on the fact that technologies associated with genetic modification could have significant positive implications for parts of the world struggling with food insecurity. While reading Comstock’s article, I too realized how frequently I fall prey to the precautionary response when it comes to my own misconceptions of technological innovations for gm purposes. As you had mentioned, it would be rather unfortunate if food-abundant countries were able to generate a large enough precautionary response against these technologies that would subsequently illegitimize their use in countries desperate for agricultural improvement.
If Comstock is right and there is in fact nothing intrinsically problematic with GE crops, then I would agree with you that it is morally irresponsible to halt the development of these technologies. If these projects could help meet the interests of nations suffering from food insecurity, whom of which are likely the same countries that are disproportionately affected by environmental degradation associated with agriculture, then we should not let the fear of safe-guarded countries dictate life and death matters in these nations (though it may not be as simple when addressing the extrinsic worries of GE).
The intrinsic fear centralized around GE crops may very well be one stemming of privilege, which your post did a great job of highlighting!