1 / 76

Ethical arguments against genetically modified foods

Dr. Gary Comstock Philosophy and Religious Studies Coordinator, Bioethics Program Iowa State University. Ethical arguments against genetically modified foods. Two kinds of ethical arguments against GM foods. 1. Extrinsic objections GMOs are wrong because risks outweigh benefits.

johana
Télécharger la présentation

Ethical arguments against genetically modified foods

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dr. Gary Comstock Philosophy and Religious Studies Coordinator, Bioethics Program Iowa State University Ethical arguments against genetically modified foods

  2. Two kinds of ethical arguments against GM foods 1. Extrinsic objections GMOs are wrong because risks outweigh benefits. 2. Intrinsic objections GMOs are wrong , no matter how great the benefits.

  3. 1. Extrinsic objections A. Unsafe for consumers “Frankenfoods”

  4. 2. Extrinsic objections B. Unsafe for environments “superweeds” • Herbicide resistance - canola gene flows into weedy relatives • Bt toxin kills monarch butterfly larvae

  5. Extrinsic objections C. Unfair to small farmers “Rich get richer, poor get poorer” Vandana Shiva Monocultures of the Mind

  6. Ethical arguments against GM foods 1. Extrinsic objections 2. Intrinsic objections GM foods are wrong no matter how great the benefits may be.

  7. Intrinsic objectionsGM foods are wrong because it’s wrong to: 1. Play God 2. Invent world changing technology 3. Cross species boundaries 4. Reproduce by nonsexual means 5. Disrupt integrity, beauty, balance of nature 6. Harm sentient beings

  8. Genetic engineering “ takes mankind into realms that belong to God and God alone ” - Prince Charles

  9. Intrinsic objections 1. We should not play God

  10. Intrinsic objections 1. Don’t play God Counter-examples: • High tech medicine • God wants us to genetically engineer food

  11. Intrinsic objections 2. We should not change the world through new technology

  12. Intrinsic objections 2. No world-changing technology Counter-example: Agriculture

  13. Intrinsic objections 3. We should not cross natural species boundaries

  14. Intrinsic objections 3. Don’t cross species Counter-examples: • Mules • Hybrid wheat

  15. Intrinsic objections 4. We should not use nonsexual means to reproduce

  16. Intrinsic objections 4. Don’t reproduce nonsexually Counter-examples: • GIFT and in vitro • Plant cuttings

  17. Intrinsic objections to ag biotech 5. We should not disrupt the integrity, beauty and balance of creation

  18. Intrinsic objections to ag biotech 5. Don’t disrupt nature Problems: • An extrinsic objection • Is / ought problem

  19. Intrinsic objections 6. We should not harm sentient beings

  20. Intrinsic objections 6. Don’t harm sentient beings Problems: • An extrinsic objection • Meat-eaters accept harm to animals

  21. Conclusion: Intrinsic objections are not sound 1. Playing God 2. Invent world changing technology 3. Cross species boundaries 4. Reproduce nonsexually 5. Disrupt integrity and beauty of nature 6. Harm sentient beings

  22. Extrinsic objections • Unsafe for consumers? Food allergens, toxins • Unsafe for environment? • Unintended effects on nontarget organisms • Gene flow, development of resistant weeds • Unfair to small farmers? Rich get richer, poor get poorer

  23. Extrinsic objections • Are valid concerns • Demand scientific and political attention

  24. Extrinsic objections • Support: Regulatory oversight on case-by-case basis • Do not support: a ban on all GM crops

  25. Ethical arguments FOR GM foods Potential to improve: • Diets in developing countries • Efficiency of food production • Safety and purity of food • Agricultural sustainability • Diversity of agro-ecosystems

  26. Enhanced nutrition Vitamin A Rice Iron Enhanced Rice Amino Acid Balance

  27. Insect resistance • Bt corn • Insect resistance from Bacillus thuringiensis • Non-toxic to humans • Target insect: corn borer • 40% U.S. Corn crop Bt • Potential to reduce insecticide use

  28. Disease resistance • Potatoes • Squash • Tomatoes • Corn • Rice • Canola • Soybeans • Grapes • Cantaloupes • Cucumbers

  29. Genetic engineering in microbes: enzymes • Recombinant Chymosin • Enzyme used for cheese making • Originally from calf stomach • Bovine gene expressed in GRAS microbes • FDA approved 1990 • Now used in 70% of U.S. cheese

  30. Recombinant amino acids • Aspartame • Artificial sweetener • Made from aspartic acid and phenylalanine • Used in 5,000 products • Monosodium glutamate

  31. Recombinant alpha amylase • Used to make HFCS • Gras status in 1995 • 10% U.S. corn crop processed into syrups

  32. Ethical Issues in Risk Communication: Why Consumers Need Not Worry About Genetically Modified Crops Steven R. Shafer Michael D. McElvaine Alwynelle S. Ahl Office of Risk Assessment & Cost-Benefit Analysis

  33. Ethical questions for risk assessment involving agriculture should be asked in the context of the risk assessment paradigm itself… • What can go wrong? • How likely is it to occur? • How bad will it be if the undesirable event does occur?

  34. Variability and Uncertainty • Variability • heterogeneity among measurements • estimate may be refined by increasing the number of measurements • Uncertainty • inaccuracy, incomplete knowledge • may be reduced by different types of observations • may indicate gaps to be addressed by research

  35. Ethics in Risk Assessments and Risk Communication Involving Agriculture: Some Principles • Make sure all stakeholder voices are heard • Ensure transparency of ideological positions in determination of resources at risk and endpoints

  36. Ethics in Risk Assessments and Risk Communication Involving Agriculture: Some Principles Need to • maintain a safe, nutritious, and plentiful food supply • preserve ecosystems • balance agricultural production and wise stewardship of the earth.

  37. The Act of Congress establishing a US Department of Agriculture was signed by President Lincoln in 1862…………. “….to acquire and diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture…….”

  38. USDA Mission: • ensuring a safe, affordable, nutritious, and accessible food supply • caring for agricultural, forest, and range lands • supporting sound development of rural communities

  39. USDA Mission: • providing economic opportunities for farm and rural residents • expanding global markets for agricultural and forest products and services • and working to reduce hunger in America and throughout the world.

  40. Risk assessments in USDA • Mandated by law and Executive Order for economically significant rules ($100 million) • Risk assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and Environmental Impact Statements are part of the public record • Open to public comment before proposed rules are implemented

  41. Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology • Federal Register 51:23302-23350 (1986) • Uses existing statutes to regulate products of biotechnology • Reviews of products are risk-based, not based on the technology itself • Can impose civil or criminal penalties for non-compliance

  42. Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnologyhttp://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/index.html • US Dept. of Agriculture • Plant pests • Plants • Veterinary biologics • US Food and Drug Administration • food, feed • food additives • veterinary drugs, human drugs and medical devices • US Environmental Protection Agency • microbial/plant pesticides • new uses of existing pesticides • novel microorganisms

  43. Regulation of Biotechnology:US Environmental Protection Agency • Regulatory authority under three statutes • Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) • Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), Section 408 • Ensures the safe use of microbes and pesticides in the environment • Includes regulation of GM plants that produce pesticidal substances not produced by the non-GM plant

  44. Regulation of Biotechnology:US Food and Drug Administration • Regulatory authority under Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) • Ensures the safety and labeling of the nation’s food supply (excluding meat and poultry), and of drugs • Includes monitoring foods to enforce pesticide residue tolerances set by EPA

  45. Regulation of Biotechnology:USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Regulatory authority under two statutes • Federal Plant Pest Act (FPPA) • Plant Quarantine Act • Ensures protection of American agriculture against pests and diseases

  46. Risk:Characteristic vs. Source • The maximum exposure to many acetyl cholinesterase (AC) inhibiting insecticides (organophosphates, carbamates) considered acceptable under the FQPA is approximately 0.01 mg per kg body weight per day • Solanaceous crops contain glycoalkaloids • Glycoalkaloids are AC inhibitors, and for crops like potato and pepper, the aRfD is also 0.01 mg per kg per day

  47. 20-kg childaRfD = 0.01 mg/kg/d

  48. 70-kg adultaRfD = 0.01 mg/kg/d

  49. Assume that a new variety of apple has been developed.It has the ability to produce AC-inhibiting glycoalkaloids.It is resistant to many insect pests.

More Related