Abstract
Every one of our decisions and acts must be ethical. Is it difficult to live up to this absolute rule? Not so much so for the smaller actions one performs with regularity as when one interacts with one’s family and fellow workers. However, for the major decisions in which values conflict in important ways and stakeholders are significantly affected, the ethical going gets much harder. Here is where people find themselves going astray from the right and good, often for what they subjectively perceive as justified reasons but objectively are not. Many times the cause is not that the person is evil or seeking to do wrong for its own sake, but rather the reason is that the person lacks adequate information or a practical decision procedure that can help her make a moral choice, enact it, and be able to justify it to other reasonable people.
Some of this chapter’s significant arguments can be found in Cooley (2008, 2007, 2004a, b, 2002b). Since they first appeared, more nuanced reasoning and information has come to light that has affected my arguments, and in one case, changed the more wary position on transgenics in Cooley (2002b) to a more positive one
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For more in-depth examinations of many of these biotechnological issues, see Rollin (1996), Sherlock and Morrey (2002), and Thompson (2007). For an older but still useful introduction, see Fincham and Ravetz (1991).
- 2.
In the absence of a plurality, RPU for individuals and governments are identical.
- 3.
Linda MacDonald Glenn suggests a global or international approach to deciding what deserves legal status and respect (Glenn 2003). Although I have argued for universal truths about value, my concern with Glenn’s view is that it will be taken by some to an extreme that she is unlikely to approve. To achieve universality, some might not allow individual cultures to have different values from other cultures. If there are morally permissible differences in these general areas, then it would be better and more respectful to allow diversity to exist rather than to extinguish it.
- 4.
The demonstration required to satisfy governments and regulators should be limited to what will satisfy PMC. Excessive documentation and other standards illicitly limit autonomy which would not respect people as ends in themselves, and would fail to be likely to maximize utility. The same conclusion can be reached for lax regulations that unnecessarily endanger intrinsically valuable things or create problems that could have been avoided easily.
- 5.
Fox uses actual demand and acceptance, but flexibility is required here. If people do not know enough about a technology, then regardless of how the public would respond, the lack of demand would kill most new developments before they ever happen. In addition, new technology might not now be acceptable, but would be in time. How to evaluate these more tenuous pieces of information would once again be thrown to the standard of what the reasonable person thinks using RPU and QCI.
- 6.
There are a variety of people who have claimed various problems with transgenics (Davies 2004, pp. 76–81; Ho 2006, p. 291; Rollin 1990, pp. 300–2; Westra 1993, p. 222). The lists seem to be uniform, which might entail that they are complete.
- 7.
Mark Sagoff notes that an increase in biodiversity is not always a good thing. More wildlife in certain areas increases impurities and pathogenic microorganisms from their fecal matter (Sagoff 2004, pp. 131–2).
- 8.
Although one of Curtin’s primary concerns is private ownership of the major food crops’ genomes, he also expresses reservations about two few companies owning the information (Curtin 2005, p. 149).
- 9.
For the sake of discussion, I will label as weeds all plants which have no value to those planting the crops and which will reduce the amount harvested. See Reiss and Straughan for a much more detailed definition of weed (2001, p. 149).
- 10.
In 1996, a Danish research team under Denmark’s Environmental Science and Technology Department observed the transfer of a gene from a genetically engineered crop to a weedy relative (Rifkin 2007, p. 5).
- 11.
Monsanto and other companies could have introduced Terminator technology which would make all the seed sterile, but public outcry over the effects to developing world farmers caused the companies to agree not to use Terminator. Ironically, many of the problems of cross-pollination would have been avoided with Terminator technology, but if Monsanto changes its mind, it will be pilloried by environmental groups.
- 12.
Some people have argued against biotechnology on the grounds that it would harm family farms (Zimdahl 2006, p. 166). According to some family farms should be preserved because they are the backbone of a valuable rural community; if we lose them we will lose an important political-economic entity of traditional values, a cherished symbol of moral values, and a solution to long term natural resource problems (Ibid., pp. 166–7). Lehman rejects the argument on the grounds of no general consensus on what a family farm is, family farms do not conserve resources any better than corporations do, and small farmers tend to adopt minimum tillage options at a slower rate than other groups do (Lehman 1995, pp. 130–7). If we wanted to establish whether or not corporate farming is better than family farming, we would still have difficulty in finding universal standards by which to measure results (Lehman 1995, p. 138).
- 13.
“On Not Feeding the Starving”.
- 14.
Deane Curtin would state that letting people starve to death now to take care of the population problem is a coercive approach to the issue (Curtin 2005, p. 75).
- 15.
If it can be shown that EU regulations are unjustified for products consumed by humans, then it will follow that they are unjustified generally for products consumed by animals.
- 16.
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety seems to be the international standard adopted by the European Union.
- 17.
The meaning of ambiguous terms, such as careful assessment of risk, is a matter of interpretation. Each of the individual parties involved in the issue will use the definition that best suits its conceptual framework.
- 18.
In 2004, Germany adopted rules that oblige producers to keep transgenic and non-transgenic mixing to zero percent, which makes it virtually impossible to comply unless there are no transgenics in the supply line anywhere (House of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs 2004).
- 19.
The French food agency, AFSSA, wants more testing on BT-11 TO maize, even though it is not intended for human consumption and has been approved by the European Commission. The AFSSA’s decision makes it very difficult to estimate compliance costs, since most companies would assume that satisfying the European Commission would have been sufficient.
- 20.
Although precision in regulation is desirable, uncertainty often plays a role in making regulations stricter than they might in the long term need to be, but it is often thought that it is better to be cautious, than to act precipitously and cause preventable harms. For instance, the EU establishes environmental policy on acceptable levels of pollution, based upon an analysis that is as political as it is scientific, and which has a high degree of uncertainty because of a lack of data and disagreements in the scientific community as to harm and risk (Bailey et al. 2002, p. 248). In order to make the process fairer and help businesses understand what is expected of them, there needs to be a consensus-based, cooperative relationship between regulators and those regulated. Hence, businesses can better estimate how much regulation compliance will cost them, and then make more informed decisions about continuing to invest and market products.
- 21.
Some might argue that the new environmental regulations are necessary to force businesses to adopt innovations that will benefit the environment, but that the businesses would not have otherwise have adopted. Following the regulations then becomes part of the cost of doing business in that market, which then can be reflected in the price of the products.
- 22.
What is odd about Wang’s statement is that China is becoming one of the leading nations in developing transgenic organisms in agriculture.
- 23.
Kelemu et al. state that:
While we should debate and challenge new technologies and their products, bringing the GMO debate into food aid in Africa when millions are faced with life-and-death situations is irresponsible. When people are reduced to eating grass, is it ethical to prevent them from consuming GM foods that are nevertheless being consumed by millions of people around the world? Who really would prefer to die rather than eat GM foods? (Kelemu et al. 2003, p. 398)
- 24.
It is difficult to tell if the starving people would have wanted the government to take this action. However, the fact it did indicates a very large problem for TOs market access.
- 25.
Anna Meldolesi argues in “Political will to lift the GMO moratorium emerging in Europe” that the new governments, which have emerged in Italy, Denmark, and France, are more likely to lift the ban provided that strict traceability and labeling laws are in place. However, she has not taken into account the anti-transgenic organism attitude of the populace that might play a strong part against lifting the moratorium.
- 26.
For example, since some transgenics are created using viruses to splice the desired DNA into the recipient genetic material, then there is a possibility of horizontal gene transfer from the transgenic to the gut of the organism consuming it.
- 27.
Jeremy Rifkin also wonders how pharmaceutical plants will affect foraging animals, seed eating birds, soil insects, and those creatures which will eat them (Rifkin 2007, p. 4).
- 28.
Some of the citations seem to be twisting the results to conclusions attacking Round-Up Ready crops that are unsupported by the researchers as in the case of Benbrook and the studies of glysophate and human placental cells by Richard et al. (Benbrook 2005, p. 3).
- 29.
For a representative example of the USDA’s extensive review process, see the USDA/APHIS findings on Roundup Ready Alfalfa.
- 30.
Claims have been made that TO producers intend that weeds become herbicide resistant so that they can sell their new herbicide and seed system to combat the problem, and that the herbicide drift into neighbors’ fields will force them to buy their products else their crops be destroyed (Schmitz 2005, pp. 62–4).
- 31.
Monsanto’s transgenic wheat is GRAS are the organic and conventional varieties; so it has the same gluten allergy problems as they do.
- 32.
Bailey claims that products of conventional breeding would never be able to pass the requirements transgenics face (Bailey 2002, p. 38).
- 33.
Conventional farming has its own environmental, health, and social problems including pollution from fertilizer runoff, cropping techniques that allow for excessive soil erosion, pesticide pollution, and problems stemming from monoculture production, and loss of jobs after the introduction of machinery and other technology (Zimdahl 2006, p. 78).
- 34.
Again, there will be bad actors who try to escape the confines of what morality dictates, but they exist for all areas of endeavor.
- 35.
Scientists who deleted two genes in mice to prevent a blood supply being developed in the body to feed tumors, thereby starving the tumors to death, believe that anti-angiogenesis, as this procedure is called, will be useful in battling cancer in human beings (Wade 1999, pp. 1–3).
- 36.
Conventional farming has lead to monoculturalism. In 1972, US corn with the genetic trait Texas T cytoplasm was attacked by a virus. Since that type of corn was the most extensively planted, the crop was a disaster (Thompson 2007, p. 33). Therefore, attacks on transgenics based on the alleged reduction of diversity are not actually about the transgenics as much as they are about diversity in general for all products.
- 37.
These genes have also been used on potatoes for the same reason (Reiss and Straughan 2001, p. 153).
- 38.
Novartis has combined with AstraZeneca to become Syngenta.
- 39.
See Adam’s Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.
- 40.
Miguel Altieri makes this claim among others (Altieri 2002, p. 66).
- 41.
Problems might also arise for reasons unrelated to the transgenics themselves. Since this biotechnology can create unjustified emotions in quite a few people who are expected to accept it, before a product is marketed, it would be wise to educate the relevant sections of the public. Proper education have the beneficial consequences of avoiding people making decisions primarily on emotions, such as exuberance or fear, rather than reason (Riess and Straughan 2001, p. 228).
- 42.
Fox insists that replacing conventional agriculture with organic farming would save $60 billion on public health annually, but provides inadequate evidence to support his claim (Fox 1999, p. 41).
- 43.
Some might argue that capitalism is unethical; hence, what is a necessary condition for capitalism, especially social welfare capitalism, to exist is prima facie unethical as well. However, for the purposes of this work, I will stipulate that capitalism is ethical on the grounds that fair competition does often lead to more efficient systems and production of novel ideas.
- 44.
Of course, some contracts do not need to be honored, especially if they contract for illegal services. Furthermore, if the contract does not offer consideration to one or more parties, fraud has been committed, or one or more of the parties is not competent to give consent, as well as other reasons, then the contract can be voided.
- 45.
Unlike Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT), in which member states must show it is necessary to violate GATT rules in order to protect health or the environment, SPM rules do not allow for exceptions.
- 46.
In their cases the pro-transgenic side will use SPM 2.1-3 to argue that the EU is imposing illicit restrictions on trade, while the EU will use 5.7 to justify their actions.
- 47.
See Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1204/2003 of 4 July 2003.
- 48.
In the United States, there are twenty-nine federal agencies responsible for major consumer protection activities, including but not limited to food, environment, commerce, and energy (Brennan and Kubasek 1998, pp. 486–91).
- 49.
A caveat is appropriate at this point. The Mellman Group has found that Americans are uncertain about transgenic food safety and the plurality believes that more federal regulation of this biotechnology should exits (Pew 2001–6, 2006, pp. 4–6).
- 50.
Of course, if the market still has a healthy organic sector, then autonomy can still be respected according to QCI.
- 51.
Laura Westra uses a rights based argument against genetically engineered food that has some similarity to the autonomy argument which I develop. I think that mine is the stronger of the two for it avoids the problems of establishing the existence of moral rights.
- 52.
Unmediated actions affecting only the act’s agent are unproblematic, because by definition, no one’s autonomy is stymied. Hence, they will not be considered.
- 53.
At this time, I want to make a distinction between two uses of the word “autonomy”. First, “autonomy” can refer to the ontological state of an agent having autonomy or being an autonomous being. A person may have autonomy according to this definition, hence, in the same way that a courageous person has the virtue of courage as part of his ontological state. “Autonomy” can also refer to how an agent acts in particular situations. One person can, for example, limit another’s autonomy by limiting the number of choices open to the individual, while not affecting the autonomous nature of the individual himself. Hence, autonomy can be understood in two different ways, by either eliminating the autonomy of the individual or limiting the autonomous actions that the agent may perform. It is this latter sense of the word that I will assume for the rest of this chapter.
- 54.
The same result is found in those situations in which the agent’s use of autonomy is significant, while all those he affects would use their autonomy in a trivial way. This could be labeled principle three.
- 55.
Though some may disagree that the use is trivial.
- 56.
Fred H. Degnan convincingly argues that the FDA is unable to mandate labeling products containing TOs due to the fact that there is no material difference between transgenics and their non-transgenic counterparts (Degnan 2007, pp. 26–7).
- 57.
There has already been a disagreement over soy oil. In September 2000, Thailand informed the WTO committee that Egypt restricted tuna canned with transgenic soy oil, and was baring importation of tuna from Thailand based upon the assumption it used such oil in its canning, which it does not (Wolff 2001, p. 2). The oddest part of the complaint was the failure to recognize that refined soy oil does not contain the genetic material about which Egypt was concerned.
- 58.
Stilwell and van Dyke’s reasons for labeling are the same as the first four of Appelton’s six reasons.
- 59.
It is interesting to consider the effect of putting all information any consumer might want on each product in a market. If a product is controversial, then there would be many written lines for consumers to read. The questions then arise as to who would be responsible for creating and paying for additional packaging to carry the information if it exceeds what the producer currently uses, what reading comprehension level is appropriate, and so on. More importantly, we should be concerned that too much information might be less effective than desired. Consumers might ignore or take the information less seriously if it appears to be excessive or overwrought.
- 60.
In American studies funded by the pro-biotechnology International Food Information Council, only 3% of American expressed concerns about food biotechnology, while microbial food borne illness and the improper handling of food were most often mentioned at 36% and 35%, respectively (IFIC, p. 2). In addition, 82% of respondents stated that they were not interested in having more information added to food labels (Ibid.).
- 61.
Restricting markets tends to make the resulting economies perform worse than more open market competition. Closed economies grow on average less than 1% per year, while open economies grow about 3.5% annually (Tutwiler and Straub 2005, p. 2).
- 62.
See the European Commission’s “Wallstrom and Byrne welcome EP acceptance of a trustworthy and safe approach to GMOs and GM food and feed.” http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?reslist
2 July 2003, 1–4.
- 63.
On these grounds, PMC would not be able to classify labeling regulations as morally right. No reasonable person would reasonably believe the regulations would likely lead to the best outcome, especially given the harm done to the developing world. Moreover, the unfair treatment of moral agents would never satisfy QCI.
- 64.
See D.R. Cooley’s “Transgenic Organisms, the European Union and the World Trade Organization”
- 65.
For example, the questions of who should be held liable for damages caused by cross pollination and why they are liable were debated in StarLink cross pollination cases (Laidlaw,http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/surrender.cfm, pp. 1–6; Harris, pp. 1–4).
- 66.
Even though it has not been developed to a point of being able to defeat all attacks upon it, Peter Singer’s principle of giving away one’s goods until the point that a further loss would be too great of a significant moral worth is plausible. In general, if trying to prevent further harm to the individual is impossible, without being harmed even more in some other way, then the agent cannot be required to do it.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cooley, D.R. (2010). Applying PMC to a Few Transgenic Technology Issues. In: Technology, Transgenics and a Practical Moral Code. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3021-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3021-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3020-7
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3021-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)