by Heather (2006)

Student Paper
 

 Imagine steaming hot French fries, salted, fried to perfection, possibly the best French fries that you have ever tasted. Did you ever stop in the midst of consuming the near perfect fries to consider what type of potato these were made from? The likely answer would be no.  Yet the potato that was cut to make the fries was genetically engineered to contain its own pesticide.  Not a question the consumer would contemplate while devouring the delicious food, yet this question may hold more importance than it may seem.

      Modifying foods is a growing trend; genetic engineering is in the lead.  To “enhance” a food through genetic engineering, a gene or piece of DNA from one source is pasted into the DNA of another species (Kerr). The DNA is taken because it had desirable qualities, creating a more desirable source. Modifying plant genes is not new.  It has its early roots back in the 19th century, when Gregor Mendel first discovered that characteristics in pea plants could be inherited (Kerr).   Since, scientists have been improving plants by changing their genetic makeup. This was done through hybridization in which two related plants were cross fertilized and the resulting offspring had the characteristics of both plants (Kerr).     

This plant biotechnology has rapidly evolved over the past fifteen years, achieving increased productivity of agriculture to fulfill human needs. Based on the rising population the increasing demand will be met according to genetic engineers (Kerr).  Enhancing the nutritional composition of plant foods is becoming a priority in genetic engineering. Recently, scientists have successfully transferred the entire coding sequence of the soybean into rice, increasing the iron in rice up to eight times the original amount (Kerr).  Genetically modified foods may help preserve the environment as well.  It has

been argued that farm raised pigs manure contains phosphorous, which runs off into lakes and estuaries when it rains, depleting oxygen, killing fish, stimulating algae overgrowth and emitting greenhouse gases (Silver).  Genetic engineers have created a pig whose manure does not contain phosphorous at all (Silver).  This pig known as Enviropig, is the product of genetic modification, and if adopted widely, it could reduce a major source of pollution.

       If genetically modified foods have provided multiple advantages to the people in the United States, then why do entire European countries refuse to buy genetically modified food?  Why are the nineteen countries in Africa that are filled with starving people turning away genetically modified foods (Silver)?  Well, think back to those French fries that you were consuming. That potato that contains the pest resistant genes damaged the organs and immune system in lab rats (Fuchs).  Genetically modified foods have also been proven to cause allergic reactions (Kerr). Since, genetically modified plant based foods had been crossed with other sources on possibly multiple occasions, it creates greater risk for food allergies (Kerr).  Not only do these foods cause food allergies, but also contribute to cancer.  RbGH is a genetically modified hormone given to dairy cows so they produce more milk (Nick).  Traces remain in milk, cheese, and yogurt which we as the consumer ingest.  RbGH is associated with prostate, breast, and lung cancers. Again, think back to the French fries that were made out of the pest free potato.  This same potato that damaged the lab rats, were then fed to study participants.  In 10 days the participant’s white blood cells could not fight infections and their immune systems were damaged(Kerr).A few years later twenty-two leading scientists signed a full page ad in the New York Times stating that genetically engineered foods contribute to immune- suppression (Silver).  Genetically modified foods have also been linked to antibiotic resistance; genes that have been transferred from one species to another have increased antibiotic resistance, which transfer to human’s digestive system (Silver). Also in all genetically modified food the Cauliflower Mosiaic Virus is used, which can cause a severe viral infection which had damaged the stomach lining in lab rats (Kerr).  Would you believe even animals can tell the difference?  It is true, farmers in the Midwest watched cows walk past fields of genetically altered corn and eats non-genetically modified corn right down to the ground cornstalk and all (Kerr).

            Supporting or opposing genetically modified foods may be different for you than it is for me.  Every single human being has a unique mind.  Not one identical to the other, some of us think similarly and some very differently.  Everyone has different ethical perspectives; many philosophers have fine-tuned perspectives creating a direct way of viewing situations.  One of those being utilitarianism, which is a moral theory claiming that what is morally correct is what produces the greatest amount of pleasure.   Utilitarian’s would view genetically modified food as a good product, because it tends to help more people than hurt them.  They would say that the population is consuming more nutrient rich food, like the iron rich rice that the genetic engineers have created, and it has also created a solution to starvation, and malnutrition worldwide.  It has also benefited the environment saving aquatic life, creating animals that will not produce pollution.  Do the ends justify the means?  Can we justify that producing genetically modified food, the foods that can cause cancer, allergic reactions, and immune and organ damage, for the sake of feeding more mouths? This is a criticism of a utilitarian’s consequential nature (MacKinnon 52).

            An egoist would argue that each person should care about them self and themselves only.  Ethical egoism supports selfishness, and that selfishness is extolled as a virtue (MacKinnon 35).  The food manufactures and farmers benefit financially, they produce more food for an inexpensive price. It would be a selfish act to continue to produce food this way, and it would be considered virtuous for being selfish in their acts.  Consumers would have to act selfishly as well, benefit them the most.  That would be a personal preference unique to each individual.  For one person it may be not consuming genetically modified foods to avoid the risks, for another it may be consuming the food because of the price and nutritional value. If we depend less on others we may become stronger and happier making our own decisions and living and eating what we choose (MacKinnon 35). Unfortunately, this may initially seem like the best solution, yet an egoist perspective lacks nonconformity to common sense mortality (MacKinnon 35).  Traditional virtues of honesty, fidelity, and loyalty have no value to an egoist (MacKinnon 37). Is it right for a farmer to further his process of genetically modified foods to gain finically?  He had the knowledge that the food harms human bodies? Farmers and manufactures may further their genetically modified foods; producing more and more to the point that the world would no longer contain the original plant that once lived.  Without the option of organic it would leave the consumer left purchasing genetically modified food.  This would cause debates among average citizens and the food producers, issues that may end in fighting, violence, even death.

Instead of asking “What should we do?” we might ask ourselves “What ought we be?”  This is the question that virtue ethics asks.  This theory’s main principle focuses on developing moral virtues in ourselves and our communities (MacKinnon). Living in a world from a virtue ethical perspective, genetically modified foods would have been a trend of the past.  Virtue ethics focuses on character traits, such as honesty and fairness. With this in mind, farmers would not continue producing genetically modified food that would harm a person’s health.  It is not fair or honest to proceed producing genetically modified food for a financial gain.  Virtue ethics persists on living a life of   “human flourishing” (Mackinnon).  Although the profit will not be as great, food production will be less and it will all be honest authentic food that was originally placed on this earth.  The virtue ethical perspective does provide a solution to genetically modified food, but as with all solution there are consequences that occur.  The issues that arise may be distinguishing between what is right and wrong; virtue ethics minimizes the importance of right and wrong, providing no rules to follow, and relies on humans character, a mix of their virtues and vices (MacKinnon).

                   From my personal perspective, I would not want to eat a potato that damaged a lab rat’s organs and immune system, because I can only imagine what it would do to my own insides.  Neither would I like to drink milk that had been associated with several different types of cancers.  The European countries that refuse genetically modified foods have their reasons, and they are valid and proven.  The nineteen countries in Africa that turned away this food has made it clear that they would rather starve than consume genetically modified food.  Unfortunately, I believe that the “flourishing” United States has become blind to anything except the dollar bill.  We as a nation need to focus on the health and well-being of people.  Yes, genetically modified food initially seemed an excellent solution to starvation ands malnutrition.  Yet, as scientists furthered the research on this food, they discovered all the hazards to human health.  If allergic reactions, cancer, immune suppression, and antibiotic resistance are not enough to eliminate genetically modified foods, I am not sure what is.  I stand strong in the middle of the ethical perspectives that were viewed above; combining the theories may solve the issue of genetically modified food.  The egoist would agree that we must look out for ourselves, yet virtue ethics entails we must extol good virtues, while the utilitarian believes in greater amounts of pleasure than pain.  Combining perspectives results in humans that look out for themselves, yet considers others while being honest, and fair, aiming for the greatest amount of happiness in the world.  From this combined perspective, genetically modified food would come to a halt, while contemplating a new a safe high food production method.

    An old saying is “Knowledge is Power” Yet, food producers have knowledge as to what genetically modified food had caused, and continues to produce it.  Based on my own research, the majority of consumers that posses knowledge of this issue continues to buy genetically modified foods.  So I have come to a new revelation: knowledge is worthless without wisdom.  Combining perspectives creates wisdom, which is the virtue all of the human population needs to posses. With this virtue the world would be able thrive, not only in finding solutions for genetically modified foods, but many more issues that arise.       

Works Cited

Fuchs, Kathryn. “Genetically Modified Foods.”  Woman’s Health Letter 8.4 (2002): 7-.           

Expanded Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Three Rivers Community College

Learning Resource Center, Norwich, CT. 25 March 2006.

Kerr, Philip. “Genetically Engineered Crops: Their Potential use for Improvement of

Human Nutrition.” Nutrition Reviews 60.5 (2002): 27- Expanded Academic

ASAP. InfoTrac. Three Rivers Community College Learning Resource Center,

Norwich, CT. 25 March 2006.

Mackinnon, Barbara. Ethics Theory and Contemporary Issues. Canada: Thomas

            Learning, 2004.

Silver, Lee. “Why GM food is good for us: Genetically Modified foods may be Greener            

Than Organic Ones.” Newsweek International 7.5 (2006): 20- Expanded

Academic ASAP. InfoTrac. Three Rivers Community College Learning Resource         

Center, Norwich, CT. 25 March 2006.