GMOs and Global Justice: Applying Global Justice Theory to the Case of Genetically Modified Crops and Food



Proponents of using genetically modified (GM) crops and food in the developing world often claim that it is unjust not to use GMOs (genetically modified organisms) to alleviate hunger and malnutrition in developing countries. In reply, the critics of GMOs claim that while GMOs may be useful as a technological means to increase yields and crop quality, stable and efficient institutions are required in order to provide the benefits from GMO technology. In this debate, the GMO proponents tend to rely on a simple utilitarian type of calculus that highlights the benefits of GMOs to the poor, but that overlooks the complex institutional requirements necessary for GMO production. The critics, recognizing the importance of institutional conditions, focus primarily on the negative impacts of institutional deficiencies, thereby overlooking the basically Rawlsian claim that institutions per se may generate claims to justice. This article investigates how GMOs might generate claims to global justice and what type of justice is involved. The paper argues that the debate on GMOs and global justice can be categorized into three views, i.e., the cosmopolitan, the pluralist, and the sceptic. The cosmopolitan holds that GMOs can and should be used for alleviating global hunger, whereas the sceptic rejects this course of action. I will argue here for a moderately cosmopolitan approach, relying on the pluralist view of institutions and the need to exploit the benefits of GMOs. This argument rests on the premise that global cooperation on GMO production provides the relevant basis for assessing the use of GMOs by the standard of global distributive justice.


Global justice Basic structure Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) International law WTO Borlaug hypothesis 



Earlier versions of this paper were written during my period as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Copenhagen, priority area Biocampus 2006-07. I would like to thank participants at the 2007 EurSafe conference in Vienna, participants at the 2008 conference of the Association of Legal and Social Philosophy in Nottingham, Sune Lægaard, Søren Flinch Midtgaard, three anonymous reviewers and the editors for valuable comments.


  1. Abizadeh, A. (2007). Cooperation, pervasive impact, and coercion: on the scope (not site) of distributive justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 35(4), 318–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beitz, C. (1979, 1999). Political theory and international relations. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bernauer, T. (2003). Genes, trade and regulation–the seeds of conflict in food biotechnology. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blay, S. (2005). International regulation of biotechnology: Problems and prospects. Journal of International Biology Law, 2(1), 245–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borlaug, N. (2000a). Ending world hunger. The promise of biotechnology and the threat of anti-science zealotry. Plant Physiology, 124, 487–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borlaug, N. (2000b). We need biotech to feed the world. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition) (December 6).Google Scholar
  7. Brom, F. W. A. (2004). WTO, public reason and food public reasoning in the ‘trade conflict’ on GM-food. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 7, 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chadwick, R., & Wilson, S. (2004). Genomic databases as global public goods? Res Publica, 10, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clapp, J. (2004). WTO agricultural trade battles and food aid. Third World Quarterly, 25(8), 1439–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J., & Sabel, C. (2006). Extra republicam nulla justitia. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 34(2), 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Danida, (2002). Assessment of potentials and constraints for development and use of plant biotechnology in relation to plant breeding and crop production in developing countries. Danida working paper.Google Scholar
  12. EU Commission. (2010). Communication from the commission to the european parliament, the council, the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions—on the freedom for member states to decide on the cultivation of genetically modified crops. Accessed on August 31, 2010 from
  13. Gonzalez, C. G. (2007). Genetically modified organisms and justice: The International environmental justice implications of biotechnology. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 19(4), 1–53.Google Scholar
  14. Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature–science and democracy in Europe and the United States. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Nagel, T. (2005). The problem of global justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2), 113–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2003). The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries—a follow-up discussion paper. London.Google Scholar
  17. Pinstrup-Andersen, P., & Schiøler, E. (2001). Seeds of contentionworld hunger and the global controversy over genetically modified crops. Washington: IFPRI, Food Policy Statements 33.Google Scholar
  18. Pogge, T. (2002). World poverty and human rights. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples–with the idea of public reason revisited. Cambridge US: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sandøe, P., & Hauge Madsen, K. (2007). Agricultural and Food Ethics in the Western World: A case of Ethical Imperialism? In P. Pinstrup-Andersen & P. Sandøe (Eds.), Ethics, hunger and globalization—in search of appropriate policies. The international library of environmental, agricultural and food ethics (Vol. 12, pp. 201–214). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Sharife, K. (2009). Is GM food the future for Africa? New African, January, (480), 9–13.Google Scholar
  23. Singer, P. (1971, 1985). Famine, affluence and morality. In C. Beitz, M. Cohen, T. Scanlon & J. Simmons (Eds.), International EthicsA Philosophy & Public Affairs Reader (247-261). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Singer, P. (2002). One world–the ethics of globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2000). Montreal.Google Scholar
  26. Thompson, P. B. (2007). Ethics, hunger and the case for genetically modified (GM) crops. In P. Pinstrup-Andersen & P. Sandøe (Eds.), Ethics, hunger and globalization–in search of appropriate policies. The international library of environmental, agricultural and food ethics (Vol. 12, pp. 215–235). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Thompson, P. B. (2010). Food aid and the famine relief argument (brief return). Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 23, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Winickoff, D., Jasanoff, S., Busch, L., Grove-White, R., & Wynne, B. (2005). Adjudicating the GM food wars: Science, risk and democracy in world trade law. The Yale Journal of International Law, 30, 81–121.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Copenhagen SDenmark

Personalised recommendations