Dilemma of Genetically Modified Foods - Essay Example

An Appeal to the Unnatural Genetically modified foods (or crops) are often the of critical media attention, fueled by public skepticism aboutany positives that can come about by introducing these products in the marketplace. Despite the added productivity of farms and quality of the food they produce, the public has voiced concern about the industry’s movement toward higher yields. While the United States, in the face of this open resistance to modified organisms, has introduced a large number of them to the marketplace, countries elsewhere in the world have exercised government power to keep GMOs outside their borders (GM Watch). In 2000, for the first time a food product was recalled because of its genetically modified ingredients by Taco Bell brand. The recall occurred not because of some imminent danger to human life, but because it has not been approved by government bureaucrats at the USDA. The media attention surrounding the recall castigated Taco Bell for endangering lives, and seized the opportunity to condemn all genetically modified foods. They did this despite the fact that many genetically modified foods are already approved by government agencies entrusted with “protecting” the American people from food producing corporations (Fulmer). Nevertheless, there is little to be “protected” from in this case: genetically modified foods offer a wealth of benefits, in spite of their damaged reputation. Arguments that we frequently hear against the use and consumption of genetically modified foods are based on commitments to overly sentimental appeals to nature and related fallacies. The term “genetically modified food” or “genetically modified organism” often vaguely refers to a bioengineered crop plant grown and harvested for consumption by humans or animals. Products that might be classified as GMOs are developed in laboratories to augment desired traits as they are expressed in the plant’s phenotypes (Whitman). Traits that farmers and scientists will likely select for include a higher nutritional content, a stronger resistance to herbicides, a stronger resistance to harsh environmental conditions, and a longer shelf life. These traits allow (1) the farmer to produce a better yield and therefore bring more of his product to the marketplace, and (2) provide a better quality product that (a) tastes better and (b) is healthier. Genetic engineering allows the scientist to select a desired trait very rapidly, and transplant an advantageous gene from one plant to another. This conception of the genetically modified organism allows us to point out some of the economic and biological benefits of such a product. Diana Brandner has classified the benefits of these products into four categories: (1) agricultural, referring to increased yield, (2) environmental, referring to the reduced use of pesticides, herbicides, and fuel, (3) nutritional, referring to the improved quality of foods, and (4) disease protection, referring to foods that work like edible vaccines (Brandner 434). Genetically modified organisms can meet the exponentially growing needs of the Earth’s human population. They offer pest resistance: millions of people die each year because of devastation done by pests to food supplies, and people in developed countries should not wish to eat pesticide-treated foods. They offer herbicide tolerance: killing weeds that decrease yields is an expensive and time-consuming process, driving up the costs of yields. They offer nutritional benefits: malnutrition is rampant in underdeveloped countries that rely on a single crop as they main source of food. They offer salinity and drought tolerance: as the world population grows, farmers will be forced to grow foods in areas previously thought unsuitable for growth. They offer pharmaceutical benefits: vaccines and medicines can be grown in plants that are more accessible to poorer countries. Taken together, these benefits seem to make the case for the introduction of genetically modified organisms into the markets for developed and underdeveloped countries. Of course, there are legitimate concerns at the heart of opposition to genetically modified foods. The most compelling of these concerns is the possible allergenic effect of these products in populations. There has been speculation that the introduction of a gene to a plant may potentially create a new allergen. In the past, using biotechnology to augment nutritional values or pest resistance has raised important questions about the consequences of spreading resistance genes to surrounding plants, reporter gene insertions, and the usage of suicide genes to prevent the use of seeds from engineered foods (Metcalfe). In fact, the transplant of a gene from a Brazilian nut to a soybean was scraped due to a concern over whether the process might induce unexpected allergic reactions (Nordless, Taylor and Townsend), making it quite clear that there are yet unknown consequences of genetically modified organisms on the free market for trade. However, what this says is not that the usage of genetically modified organisms is an inherently dangerous practice. All it does is suggest that there has not been enough testing on those products that are about to go to market. The problem of the nut/soybean transplant, which is overused to support the opposition’s position, was actually found during testing the product and the product was pulled before it was introduced to the public. Thus, with some degree of testing, a genetically modified product can be safely used by any consumer. But the question is how much testing is enough. This, of course, depends on the nature of the product and the nature of its use by consumers. But, taking this into consideration, we are not warranted to claim something like “genetically modified foods are dangerous for your health”. We are only justified in saying that we ought to refrain from releasing just any product, untested, into the public for consumption. However, this is the case for any industry, whether it is the toy industry, the television industry, and so on. Moreover, it is one thing to say that genetically modified foods need to be tested before they are released to the public because they might pose a danger. It is quite another to say that genetically modified organisms are inherently dangerous as many seem to believe. For instance, a news article from Purdue University reports, “Scientists say that genetically modified foods are safe, but many people are still uncomfortably about eating them, saying they’re unnatural” (Tally). The word “unnatural” is frequently used in discussions on a range of topics, from human cloning to genetic engineering. This appeal to nature, however, is a fallacy of reasoning and provides a useful but fallacious step ladder for the opposition to go from “GMOs are dangerous in cases X and Y because in X and Y they have not been tested” to “GMOs are dangerous in all cases”. The appeal to nature allows the discussant to make a normative claim based on a claim of nature. In doing so, however, the fallacy takes the argument away from what is to what ought to be, a jump that philosophers have said for centuries cannot be bridged logically. Not only does this jump make the argument illogical and invalid, but also emotionally-driven and motivated by values existing outside of rational inquiry. The word “natural” (and derivatively, “unnatural”) is a loaded term: it is usually an expression of one’s bias toward what one perceives as the standard case. As a result, its use and referents are frequently ambiguous. This means that, in one case, the claim that act X is “unnatural” may be correct, but simultaneously in another case, the claim that act Y is “unnatural” may be false. The case of genetically modified organisms provides an excellent example: while it is claimed that genetically changing plants to fit human needs is “unnatural”, it is actually a practice that has been performed by farmers for thousands of years. This process of selective breeding leads to precisely the same genetic changes in organisms that genetically modifying them does (Nebel and Wright 98). The only difference is that genetic modification allows the farmer or scientist to create the new organism much faster and much cheaper than having to grow multiple generations in order to isolate a trait. Changes in plant products by selective breeding have been far more radical than any of those performed by genetic engineers. For instance, wild-type bananas are oval-shaped and quite tasteless, with huge, hard seeds. Culinary bananas look nothing like their more “natural” counterparts, and yet there are no arguments presented against those we find in our supermarkets. Genetically modified organisms can potentially provide an efficient and valuable solution to many of the world’s solvable problems dealing with malnutrition and hunger. They can provide environmental protection through helping create higher yields and reducing the amount of chemicals necessary in this production. Although there is a certain degree of harm that can be done by the hasty, unchecked use of these products, we cannot base a resistance to them on an overly emotional, sentimental appeal to nature and the belief that the government must protect us from their potential harm. No one should reasonably ignore the problems that may result from the enthusiasm many share regarding how these products might promote human life and the Earth. Nevertheless, genetically modified organisms are the future of food production in the world, and it is unacceptable to hold back on unleashing the enormous benefits they can promise to mankind. Simply stated, the arguments against the use of these products are not at all strong. However, in the public sphere, it is not the most logical argument that ends up influencing public policy. Rather, in a world obsessed with the perceived value of democracy, it is the argument whose conclusion appeals to the most people that ultimately wins. Works Cited Brandner, Diana L. "Detection of Genetically Modified Food: Has Your Food Been Genetically Modified?" The American Biology Teacher 64:6 (2002): 433-442. Fulmer, Melinda. Taco Bell Recalls Shells That Used Bioengineered Corn. 23 September 2000. 14 March 2009 . GM Watch. European Resistance Against GMOs Grows. 22 February 2009. 12 March 2009 . Metcalfe, Dean D. "Introduction: What Are the Issues in Addressing the Allergenic Potential of Genetically Modified Foods?" Environmental Health Perspectives 111:8 (2003): 1110-1113. Nebel, Bernard J. and Richard T. Wright. Environmental science: the way the world works. New York: Prentice Hall, 1993. Nordless, Julie A., et al. "Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans." New England Journal of Medicine 334:11 (1996): 688-692. Tally, Steve. Are genetically engineered foods natural? A bioethicist responds. November 2000. March 2009 . Whitman, Deborah. Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? April 2000. March 2009 . Read More