The Ethical Use of GMOs

1
The Ethical Use of GMOs
25 March 2005
Dr. Sakarindr Bhumiratana President National
Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA)
2
GM Products Benefits and Controversies
Benefits Controversies
Crops Enhanced taste and quality Reduced maturation time Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides New products and growing techniques Safety Potential human health impact allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects. Potential environmental impact unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
Animals Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk Access and Intellectual Property Domination of world food production by a few companies Biopiracyforeign exploitation of natural resources
Environment "Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides Conservation of soil, water, and energy Better natural waste management Ethics Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
Environment "Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides Conservation of soil, water, and energy Better natural waste management Labeling Not mandatory in some countries
Society Increased food security for growing populations Society New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries
3
What is a principle-based approach to bioethics?
Principles-Based Ethics The Big Four
Principles

• Respect for person
• Beneficence
• Justice
• Confidentiality

If in conflict, they should be balanced against
one another (but how?)
4
Two kinds of ethical arguments GMOs

• 1. Non-scientific base
• GMOs are wrong, no matter how great the benefits
  may be.
• 2. Scientific base
• GMOs are wrong because risks outweigh benefits.

Talking past each other
5
GMOs Ethical Considerations

• 1. Transgenic technology has caused some people
  to raise questions about the nature and
  consequences of GMOs.

• Do GM foods differ in any relevant ways from
  non-GM foods?
• Are any differences significant as to how they
  will they affect human health or the environment?
  
• How strictly are GMOs being tested?
• Who oversees the regulation and registration
  process?

Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
6
GMOs Ethical Considerations

• 2. The issue is whether GMOs/GM foods
  morally/ethically acceptable.

• If they are ethically acceptable, then there is
  nothing wrong about producing/using/consuming
  them.
• If they are not acceptable, people should stop
  producing them.

Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
7
GMOs Ethical Considerations

• 3. Why the deeper ethical-philosophical reasons
  underlying the GMO debates are so important.

• If we are to resolve ethical (as opposed to
  scientific) controversies associated with GMOs/GM
  foods, a key step is to acknowledge differences
  in basic values, and then debate the matter in
  terms of these deeper commitments and concerns.

Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
8
Components of Acceptability

• Judgements about ethical acceptability depend on
  answering several preliminary questions

• What GMOs are we talking about? What Product?
• Different products have different ethical
  dimensions

e.g. Bovine somatotropin Roudup-Ready Crop BT
corn Golden Rice
Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
9
Components of Acceptability (contd)
2. Bear on ethical acceptability is the context
in which the analysis or argument is set.

• need to be paid to all of relevant context in
  which a judgment about the ethical acceptability
  of GMOs can (or should) be made.

Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
10
What Ethical Paradigm?

• Consequentialist Ethics
• Ethics of Autonomy / Consent
• Ethic of Virtue / Tradition

Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
11
Ethics and Agricultural Biotechnology

1. Consequentialist Perception on Agricultural
   Biotech

• subscribe to the view that actions, policies,
  practices and technologies ought to promote
  peoples needs and preferences.
• the question is whether agriculture does this,
  and the answer is usually that it does.

Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
12
Ethics and Agricultural Biotechnology
2. Autonomy/Consent and Food/Agricultural Biotech

• begins with the axiom that self-determination
  implies that people have inviolable rights, which
  establishes the ethical demand that people be
  given a choice concerning how they want to act
  and be treated.
• people have the ethical right to choose what they
  consume/purchase and to avoid or reject it if
  they so desire.

Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
13
Ethics and Agricultural Biotechnology
3. Ethics of Virtue/Tradition and
Food/Agricultural Biotech

• virtue/tradition ethics defines ethical
  acceptability in terms of consistency with some
  deeply-held values and virtues, whether they
  relate to farming as a way of life, to life in
  accord with Nature, or to following Gods plan
  and will.
• Not all virtue/tradition ethical perspectives
  will necessarily reject GMOs or biotechnology
  overall.

Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
14
The Consequentialist Perspective on Agricultural
Biotech
Consequentialists subscribe to the view that
actions, policies, practices and technologies
ought to promote peoples needs and preferences.
Consequentialist goals (QQP) (1) Quantity
Produce enough food to feed a growing and
non-rural population. (2) Quality Produce food
that is safe and nutritionally adequate. (3)
Price Ensure that food is generally affordable
for consumers while also ensuring that farmers
receive profits from their work sufficient to
keep them in business.
Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
15
The Consequentialist Perspective on Agricultural
Biotech
The key to achieving QQP is efficiency in
agricultural production. -This means getting
the most output from the least inputs, or in
standard farming terms, productivity and yields.
-The so-called first generation1 of GM
technology was designed to help farmers achieve
greater degrees of efficiency.
- It is not surprising, then, that farmers and
policymakers concerned with efficiency, and
ultimately with QQP, should want technologies
continually improved so as to achieve even
greater productivity and yeild all the time
maintaining safe, affordable food.
If GMOs/GM foods contribute to the satisfaction
of peoples wants/preferences, they are ethically
justifiable perhaps even ethically required
(Burkhardt, 2001).
16
The Consequentialist Perspective on Agricultural
Biotech

• In consquentialist terms.
• greatest good for the greatest number
• Concerns that some things that people want other
  than QQP.
• GMOs may endanger these other goods. For
  example, environmental protections, etc.
• Issues for long-term consequences of GMOs
• - Will our childrens health be placed at risk
  by the use of GM technology?
• - What about future peoples wants and
  preferences? Are
• they being placed at risk?

Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
17
Autonomy/Consent and Food/Agricultural Biotech

• The autonomy/consent paradigm begins with the
  axiom that self-determination implies that people
  have inviolable rights.
• (Foremost among these rights is the right not to
  be harmed or placed at risk against ones will.)

• Autonomy/consent ethicists and Consequentialists
  concern about
• Is our food safe?
• Transparency of the food system.
• - farm production techniques
• - transportation and processing systems
• - packaging and marketing activities

Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
18
Autonomy/Consent and Food/Agricultural Biotech

• People have a right to purchase items that will
  not unknowingly place them at risk and thus may
  demand the choice to avoid these products. The
  strongest supporters of some form of labeling of
  GM foods.
• Many people believe that the autonomy/consent
  issues that are raised are not so much a matter
  of biotechnology as a matter of power and
  control consumers and farmers want greater
  control over the choices available to them in
  their respective arenas.
• Farmers choices.

Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
19
Autonomy/Consent and Food/Agricultural Biotech
People have the ethical right to - choose what
they are consuming - avoid or reject it if they
so desire
Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
20
Ethics of Virtue/Tradition and Food/Agricultural
Biotech
Agrarianism
- views agriculture as more than a business or
economic sector in society agriculture is a way
of life - sees the traditional family farm as
a place where real human values and virtues can
be practiced. - GMOs are designed, intended, for
business-like efficient production are not
designed to enhance the quality of life for farm
families or their communities favor larger
farms, make traditional agriculture less
competitive may make foodstuffs cheaper, forcing
traditional farmers out of business.
Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
21
Ethics of Virtue/Tradition and Food/Agricultural
Biotech
Nature-ism

• playing God
• ecosystem -- upsetting of the operation of
  ecosystems. Not to cause irreparable damage.
• for Nature-ists, once we recognize the delicate
  balancing processes that constitute ecosystems or
  Nature, we must see that human beings have no
  right to manipulate species or processes in this
  way.

Ref Jeffrey Burkhardt, IFAS, UF
22

• Conclusion

• Ethics and Agricultural Biotechnology

• Consequentiality perception on agricultural
  Biotech
• Autonomy / consent and food agricultural biotech
• Virtue / tradition and food agricultural biotech

23

• Need to

• 1. Risk assessment
• maintain a safe, nutritious, and
• plentiful food supply
• preserve ecosystems
• balance production and wise
• stewardship of the earth

24

• Need to

• demand scientific and political vigilance
• support regulatory oversight on case-by-case
  basis
• Do not support a ban on all GMOs or GM crops

2. Regulation (Risk Management)
25

• Need to

• 3. Communication
• increase public understanding of the science
  behind GMOs debate
• develop tools for public communication and
  promoting the public understanding of this and
  related issues
• not just one-way communication but should
  encourage dialogue between all participants

26

• Need to

• 3. Communication (contd)
• two-way flow of understanding between scientists
  and the public is also required
• make sure all stakeholder voice are heard

27
Thank you