1
Ethical Considerations Regarding and Appropriate Uses of GMOs
Michelle Carey
Georgetown University, Environmental Ethics
March 28, 2016
Introduction
There has been ethical and scientific debate about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) for as long as the technology has been developing. GMOs most often refer to crops which have been altered at the genetic (DNA) level in order to express different traits. There are various traits that have been pursued and given to crops, including herbicide tolerance, insect and bacterial/fungal/viral resistance, abiotic stress resistance, and micronutrient enrichment (Weale, p. 583). These traits have many potential health and economic benefits; there has been significant evidence of increased crop yields, cost savings for farmers, and reduced chemical pesticide use with GMO adoption (Klumper, p. 1). There is also an exciting potential to increase access to nutrient-rich and affordable food in developing countries around the world (Ryan et al., p. xv). GMO use has been increasing over the past 10 or more years, which suggests that they are advantageous — at least to farmers. However, there are many questions about the safety and morality of such technology. These questions have garnered significant public concern and makes policies about the development, use, and distribution of GMOs very controversial.
Inherent Morality
Intrinsic ethical concerns about GMOs are primarily centered on a feeling of unnaturalness about the technology. The technology has often been accused of “playing God” or being “Frankensteinian” (Thompson, p. 27). However, other than the perceived unacceptable nature of Genetic Modification, it has little real difference from other breeding techniques. Humans have been modifying the genetic makeup of plants and animals since agriculture began thousands of years ago. In the beginning, farmers would save and use the seeds of favorable plants, such as those with higher yields or more aesthetic appearances. Over time, they were able to increase the portion of their crops which displayed these favorable characteristics (DeJohn). In relatively recent years, knowledge about the mechanisms of gene transfer has improved, and farmers have developed more versatile methods of influencing genes. Cross pollination refers to a technique of deliberately pollinating closely related plants in an attempt to get offspring with favorable traits from both plants. Hybridization goes a little bit further, by repeatedly inbreeding plants into stable strains, and then crossbreeding two different strains to get a more accurate hybrid plant than in cross pollination. Other techniques include inducing genetic mutations with irradiation and chemicals, and selecting favorable mutations to integrate into the populations of that plant used in agriculture (Weale, p. 584).
In the 1980s, scientists began developing yet another method of altering plant genes; Genetic Modification involves inserting genes, or DNA sequences, into a plant’s genome that were previously foreign to that plant. In this way, scientists were able to target and alter specific traits of a plant, rather than its entire genome. Additionally, this was the first technique developed that would allow the transfer of traits across distantly related organisms. Despite these new advancements in the technology, there is no intrinsic difference between Genetic Modification and the other strategies. They are all aimed to give plants more favorable traits and characteristics, and they are all based on the most advanced knowledge of their time about the natural world.
Each technique alters the genetic makeup of the plants they are used on, by amplifying a natural process in a more controlled setting. Simple selection imitates natural selection (where favorable traits to humans are advantageous for the plant’s survival). Cross pollination controls the natural process of pollination by insects. Hybridization recreates a potential scenario in nature in which two closely related strains are separated by physical or environmental barriers which causes inbreeding, followed by a change in the environment which removes the barrier and allows the two strains to cross-pollinate again. Finally, Genetic Modification imitates a natural process called “horizontal gene transfer” in which genes are transferred between organisms in a manner other than traditional breeding; this transfer occurs during the lifetime of an organism rather than between generations, and is not hereditary (UCB). Horizontal gene transfer has been receiving increased attention in the study of genetics, because it is known to be the source of widespread bacterial resistance to drugs, and is more common in many different organisms than previously realized (UCB). All four of these “breeding” techniques employ our knowledge of the natural world and its processes, and then modify those processes to best fit our own needs in the most efficient way.
On the surface, there appear to be some basic differences that set Genetic Modification apart from other techniques. However, upon closer inspection it is still just a progression of the same patterns that other farming techniques have followed. One perceived difference is that with Genetic Modification, gene alteration is occurring on the molecular level, while with other techniques it was on the organism level. To some this is perceived as crossing a line, and classified as an “unnatural” technique. Bjorn Myskja explains it plainly: “given that controlled breeding is regarded as acceptable, it seems that the problem [with Genetic Modification] is not human intervention in organisms in general, but intervention on the DNA level” (p. 226). Ultimately every breeding technique causes genetic changes on the DNA level, no matter what level the farmers were working on. Myskja’s perspective is problematic because there is no explanation for why the direct level of intervention truly matters; since the final results are at most basic level the same, Genetic Modification is not meaningfully unique in this way.
Another superficial difference between Genetic Modification and other modification techniques is that Genetic Modification allows scientists to insert and transfer genes across species barriers. Many people argue that in this case, scientists are straying too far from what occurs in the natural environment. Both religious and non-religious groups think that crossing species borders is where the line should really be drawn for immoral agricultural practices (Myskja, p. 231). However, this view is based on an incomplete understanding of scientific facts, and it cannot be accepted blindly since it devolves under scientific scrutiny. The concept of species is a human construction created to aide the human understanding of our world. While those categorical distinctions are based on a real patterns in nature, species are in fact dynamic entities (Myskja, p. 234). Diseases, genetic traits, and even reproduction trends have been known to cross or blur those lines in the natural world. The idea that transferring genes across species borders is unnatural is misplaced.
While at a basic level Genetic Modification is no different than other methods of agricultural “breeding,” it is able to push the boundaries of what might organically occur in nature in a way no other technique has — especially in terms of scale and speed of change. This ties into the third way in which it can be seen as uniquely and morally questionable. Once again, Bjorn Myskja explains this view clearly:
“We should consider the fact that lay people often talk about “crossing species borders,” “playing God,” and “meddling with nature” as synonymous expressions. The philosophical arguments above miss the point that is the core of public concerns. Lay people’s objections are directed at illegitimate intervention in nature, neglecting the restrictions of one’s own power, captured in the Greek notion of hubris…It is not the alteration of the species that is unacceptable, but rather the overestimation of control that is implicit in this particular technology” (p. 228).
Myskja explains that a lack of humility is what is missing from Genetic Modification, and this is why it is immoral. By proceeding without acknowledging the uncertainties of the situation, and the risks involved with dramatically changing a component of an ecosystem, GM developers are exposing the world to potentially devastating consequences. This demonstrates a lack of respect for the complicated intricacies and nuances of the natural world, and a presumptuous display of dominance over it. Myskja proposes that limiting Genetic Modification to intragenic modification is a way to mitigate the number of unknown factors in the technique, avoid unpredictable harm, and show respect for the “otherness” of nature (p. 236). While Mysjka raises valid concerns about Genetic Modification techniques, limiting the technology in this way is unnecessary. There are other, more sensible and pragmatic ways of mitigating risks and these relate to using the Precautionary Principle in developing policy about GM technology. This will be investigated in a later section of the paper.
Upon closer inspection, the general sentiment that genetic modification represents an “improper tampering with nature” is difficult to justify in the context of the many other accepted methods of plant breeding (Weale, p. 584). Cross pollination, hybridization and mutation breeding are similarly deliberate scientific techniques which alter, amplify and control natural processes. Furthermore, genetic modification can be used as a technique to achieve the same ends as conventional plant breeding, but with less cost and time investments. Given these similarities, there is little to back up the objection that genetic modification is somehow different — other than a vague feeling of unease.
Although it may demand a certain respect and consideration, the general public’s unease about Genetic Modification does not indicate a moral wrongdoing. Leon Kass argues that “the widespread reaction of queasiness itself gives a basis for the suspicion that there is more here than meets the eye. Even if we cannot say exactly why we find this domain of science to be disturbing, we are well advised to pay a certain heed to these feelings” (Thompson, p. 27-28). He argues that a widespread negative reaction by the public, though not well explained, is reason enough to hesitate on the development of this technology. While a hesitation - and a closer look - is clearly warranted, the abandonment of the technology is not if a clearer picture of the objection cannot be brought to light. Morality is not decided by general consensus; the morality of an act should not be based simply on general opinion. As John Stuart Mill cautions in “On The Connection Between Justice and Utility,” humans are “predisposed to believe that any subjective feeling, not otherwise accounted for, is a revelation of some objective reality.” He goes on to explain that “the feeling of justice might be a particular instinct, and might yet require, like other instincts, to be controlled and enlightened by a higher reasoning” (Mill). Morality stems from the human ability to think rationally and self-consciously, and consider the values that different things have in this world. When there is no logic or higher reasoning behind an instinct, we should not base human morality — nor our public policy — on that instinct. As will be discussed in the next section, there are other ways to respect and value a natural feeling without basing our moral judgements on it.
Implications for GMO Policy
Upon a closer inspection of the different types of agricultural “breeding” techniques, it is apparent that Genetic Modification has no significant intrinsic difference from other techniques. However, there are significant risks which have to be addressed. The best way to address these health and environmental risks is to pass legislature that will mandate the adoption of the precautionary principle. Simply put, the precautionary principle states:
“when human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm [to humans or the environment] that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm…the judgement of plausibility should be grounded in scientific analysis. Analysis should be ongoing so that chosen actions are subject to review. Uncertainty may apply to, but need not be limited to, causality or the bounds of possible harm. Actions are interventions that are undertaken before harm occurs that seek to avoid or diminish the harm. Actions should be chosen that are proportional to the seriousness of the potential harm, with consideration of their positive and negative consequences, and with an assessment of the moral implications of both action and inaction. The choice of action should be the result of a participatory process” (COMEST, p. 14).
In the context of Genetic Modification, this means that assessment of the risks and benefits of a new GMO needs to be on a case-by-case basis, to prevent the careless acceptance of all GMOs without consideration of their individual potential health and environmental risks. The burden of proof should lie with the proponents of the activity (COMEST, p. 24); developers of each new GMO need to perform extensive testing and get as complete an understanding as possible of the risks involved, and their plausibility. Risks that have raised concern in the past include horizontal gene transfer, plant diversity and biodiversity, transferred allergens, widespread antibiotic resistance, and higher risks of cancer and organ damage (Weale, p. 585-586, Palmer). Some of these concerns are valid, some are easily minimized with additional testing, and some are based on shaky evidence at best (Palmer). Gilles-Eric Seralini’s claims of cancer and organ damage risks in rats, for example, have been retracted from the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal and criticized for inadequate experimental controls and methods (Food and Chemical Toxicology; Seralini). Given the hotly controversial debate about the evidence of health and environmental risks, broad conclusions about their safety cannot be made in one direction or the other. Therefore, case-by-case scientific research and testing is the best way to minimize those risks that may be valid.
To be clear, these precautions do not suggest that we should abandon GMOs because of their risk. As explained by COMEST, “The PP is not based on ‘zero risks’ but aims to achieve lower or more acceptable risks or hazards. It is not based on anxiety or emotion, but is a rational decision rule” (p. 16). Halting GMO investigation and production would be overly cautious, and would ignore a moral imperative to investigate the potential benefits that Genetic Modification can have on developing countries. There is potential in this technology for increased micro nutrition in foods, as well as increased agricultural production in general (Weale, p. 583). Additional resources have been invested in researching the potential for edible vaccines to limit the spread of some preventable diseases (Ryan et. al, p. xv). These benefits should be explored, because they have potential to combat hunger and disease in poorer countries with fewer resources. Adapting the precautionary principle is necessary to ensure the safe advancement of GM technology, but a conscious awareness of a potential “imbalance between the avoidance of harm and the achievement of a positive good” (Ryan et. al, p. 8) is also necessary. It would be irresponsible to place all emphasis on the first goal while ignoring the importance of the second. The goal of policy should be to strike a balance between the two, so that we may ensure a minimized set of risks in GM development, as well as an investigation of its potential benefits.
The final point that GMO policy should address is the widespread feeling of unease that is associated with genetic modification of plants. While this has no influence on the intrinsic morality of Genetic Modification, nor the way its development is put into practice, it should nonetheless be respected and accommodated for in the commercial sphere. Individuals are entitled to their own opinions about the world, and they should be given the opportunity to make choices based on their beliefs. Genetic Modification is a controversial topic, and many people may wish to be given a chance to avoid GMOs should they choose to do so. In order to respect this preference, GMOs and products containing GMOs should be required to be labeled as such. This should not serve as a warning sign or an acknowledgement of undesirability, but simply as an informative label in order to provide consumers with the information they want.
Conclusion
Genetic Modification is controversial for many reasons. It is often viewed as different from other agricultural breeding techniques, and it is accused of crossing a line into an unacceptable level of tampering with nature. However, each of these claims are made without sufficient evidence to back them up, and do not have any real implications for the intrinsic morality of the technology. Genetic Modification is an ethically and morally acceptable technology. Nevertheless, Genetic Modification does push the boundaries of what technology can do, and the extent to which we can drastically and rapidly affect our environment. Therefore, to responsibly continue development of the technology, adequate safeguards must be put in place to slow down the process and make it more deliberate. Furthermore, the opinions of the general public need to be respected; mandatory labeling of GMOs will allow consumers to make informed decisions about the products they buy. With these legalities in place, GMO technology will be responsibly and conscientiously developed while ensuring the safety of the human population and the environment.