Technology in agriculture and genetic modification are less understood than people think. Genetically modification to a range of methods (such as selection, hybridization, and induced mutation) used to alter the genetic composition of domesticated plants and animals to achieve a desired result [1]. This includes a wide range of plant breeding practices that have been practiced and continue to be practiced by farmers. Some of our most popular foods have been genetically modified over centuries to become what we know today. Carrots did not have their orange colour until the 18th century and tomatoes previously were the size of marbles [1]. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, is a form of genetic modification that involves the intentional introduction of a targeted change in a plant, animal, or microbial gene sequence to achieve a specific result [1]. Unfortunately, in most of the conversations today about food production and technology, genetic modification and genetic engineering have been used interchangeably. With this, conversations about ethics and morality as it concerns genetic modification (particularly genetic engineering) have increased.
In his paper, Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods, Gary Comstock talks about the ethical conclusions people have concerning genetic modification (or genetic engineering based on what he describes) and how we can use applied ethics to examine those conclusions and their validity [2]. One thing he said that stood out to me is “in a worldwide context, the precautionary response of those facing food abundance in developed countries may lead us to be insensitive to the conditions of those in less fortunate situation”. This is an important way to look at any decisions that would have international effects. And I agree with Comstock on this, short-sightedness as it pertains to genetic modification and genetic engineering may have serious implications on developing countries.
Later in the paper, Comstock talks of 3 considerations and how it helped change his mind concerning genetic modification. The first consideration is based on human rights and this is the fact that people and countries should have the right to choose to adopt genetic modification and engineering technology. I agree with this consideration. Countries should be able to make this choice particularly for things like vitamin A-enriched rice or certain drought resistant crops. Giving countries these kinds of options may be what helps them fight hunger and starvation adequately.
The second consideration is utilitarian, and it is about weighing the potential benefits over harms of genetic engineering to consumers and the environment. This is an important consideration as we do not want to create further health and environmental issues as we are tackling some. As most of the harms are not yet known, supporting genetic modification and engineering would go against the precautionary principle which is a significant principle in the environmental community. This principle proposes caution and preventative action in the face of uncertainty [3]. There are different arguments surrounding this and personally I believe that sufficient caution and research have gone into this. The benefits outweigh the harms at this point.
The third consideration has to do with virtue ethics and the wisdom of encouraging discovery, innovation, and careful regulation of GM technology [2]. This is a question that individual countries should have the right to tackle. To me genetic modification would help solve certain environmental issues as well as issues involving access to food. Encouraging this would be an ethical decision.
Oseyi
References:
- Edmisten, Keith. “What Is the Difference Between Genetically Modified Organisms and Genetically Engineered Organisms?” NC State Extension News, 2015, agbiotech.ces.ncsu.edu/q1-what-is-the-difference-between-genetically-modified-organisms-and-genetically-engineered-organisms-we-seem-to-use-the-terms-interchangeably/
- Comstock, Gary. “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods.” Food Ethics, 2010
- Kriebel, D, et al. “The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science.” Environmental Health Perspectives, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Sept. 2001, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240435/.
This post did a good job in summarizing key points of the article, expressing your opinion, and using citations effectively to prove your argument. The overall logic and structure are clear and well-organized. It starts with an introduction to the topic of genetically modified food and then introduces Gary Comstock’s paper. The post expresses the agreement with Gary Comstock and then uses the following paragraphs to further offer three key arguments that support Comstock’s opinion. Citations are effectively used to support the argument. The focus is paid to the negative impacts of genetic modification and genetic engineering, particularly on developing and less developed countries. However, I have some ideas that can make this post better. The first two paragraphs seem to talk too much that the following three paragraphs are a little short as the main section of this post. I think that the first two paragraphs can be incorporated into one and make it short and concise. In particular, the first paragraph introduces many benefits of genetic modification, which might confuse readers that you support genetic modification. It is better to make it short and avoid the direct contradiction with the second paragraph that tries to oppose genetic modification. A conclusion part is better to make the paper sound in structure. For the idea that GMO is dangerous to the environment, this can be very compelling when it comes to using the environmental approach to define certain sceintifc movement. In my opinion, the best way to solve a problem brought by science is to use scientific advancement to solve the issue so we are still at a very early stage.
-Kaize