In “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods” Gary Comstock engages with the intrinsic and extrinsic issues with the use of genetic modification or GMs. Comstock explores the intrinsic issues after finding that the extrinsic issues are not enough in themselves to oppose the use of GMs. While I fully agree with Comstock’s conclusions on the unconvincing nature of the intrinsic issues with GMs, I would argue that they too quickly dismissed the extrinsic issues that may cause concern in the adoption of GMs.

Comstock suggests that each country should put in place some form of organization in charge of research and oversight into the use of GMs. But this seems to put the burden onto countries as individuals rather than acknowledging their interconnectedness. It is no secret that historically countries have taken advantage of other countries to generate wealth for their people. With the implementation of GMs, we would likely see the same patterns emerge. While this still doesn’t create reasoning for why GMs are bad, this likely outcome should serve as a morally significant objection.

I suggest that GMs are extrinsically objectionable when looking at the three major ethical theories. In utilitarianism, we desire the greatest good for the greatest number of people. While GMs would create some benefit, it would also feed into social stratification and would be a tool to further marginalize groups of people. Comstock acknowledges that but chooses to find it not enough of a reason to ban GMs. While it’s impossible to truly figure out the specifics without widely accepting GMs, it is quite possible that the benefits would not outweigh the consequences. Virtue ethics would also be against such exploitative actions as prioritizing the gain of some over the pain of others would not be considered virtuous. Even with deontology, which would also likely be in favour of GMs in terms of autonomy would be opposed to the exploitation of those who find themselves less privileged.

One way to look at my objection of GMs in simpler terms is with an analogy. Take for example an individual that comes to your door asking to know where your friend is. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with telling this individual where your friend is, but if you were to know beyond of a shadow of a doubt that this individual was looking for your friend to harm them, then there is an issue with the consequences. This means what while GMs (or telling the individual where your friend is) holds no intrinsic harm, the extrinsic harms are so likely and great that they must be considered before any decisions can be made on the subject.

In this case, we should employ the precautionary principle. This principle states that if there is something of which we have very little scientific knowledge, we should proceed with caution and take the progress as slow as possible. I believe that this case demands us to employ this principle in order to assure that we are able to protect those not in a situation to protect themselves.

-Luke

 

Work cited:

Comstock, G. (2010). “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods.” The Philosophy of Food: Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 122-139