The High Cost of High-Tech Foods - Case Study Example

 The High Cost of High-Tech Foods One of the main ethical issues involved in this case is whether it is acceptable for GM food to be allowed into the market despite so much negative publicity about it. Furthermore, it is essential to note that despite many studies showing that GM food might be harmful to the health of individuals who consume it, some companies, such as Bayer, have chosen to ignore these studies and have put this food in the market (Caroll and Buchholtz, 2010). For the most part, these companies have chosen to take advantage of the ignorance of consumers to sell them GM food which while it has been approved for animal consumption has not been approved for human consumption. Moreover, another ethical issue that comes up is that of government responsibility towards the public and this is mainly because of the fact that despite numerous studies that show the dangers of GM foods for human consumption, the government still chooses to cite those studies published by companies that sell GM foods, even though these studies are more likely than not to be biased. The final ethical issue that comes up is that of Monsanto donating seeds to Haiti that are expensive to fertilize, leading to a situation where Haitians are left dependent on aid. The anti-GM foods group seems to be correct in its argument that GM foods are not good for human consumption mainly because of the scientific studies that have been made that show the same result. Furthermore, the FDA has approved some GM foods only for animal and not for human consumption and this can only have been done as a result of dangers that were perceived when conducting studies. It is essential to note that there are risks which have been associated with GM foods or seeds related to them such as those GM seeds. Once planted cannot produce seeds which can be planted in the following season, meaning that even more of the GM seeds need to be bought in order to ensure that there is enough food (Caroll and Buchholtz, 2010). Such a situation, like the one shown in the study of Haiti, shows that GM makes it difficult for poor individuals, especially peasants, who live on the land, to overcome the problem of hunger and achieve food security. The cultivation of GM seeds is more expensive than necessary and this leaves subsistence farmers in a worse off condition than before adopting GM seeds. The main ethical concept that has helped make a decision for anti-GM groups is based on the belief that GM foods or products are unfairly expensive and have not been proven beyond doubt to be safe for human consumption. The main method of bridging the gap between pro- and anti-GM foods groups would be to ensure that they come to a consensus concerning how to treat these products. This can be done through agreeing that there is a need for there to be tests on all GM foods by independent bodies to verify their safety before they are allowed into the market for human consumption. Furthermore, it is essential that these groups come together in the best interests of the public, because this is what can be considered to be their common ground. Instead of going on debates that are not in any way helpful, they should form an alliance to ensure that only the most reliable GM foods are approved for human consumption because without this consensus, it is more likely than not that some companies will continue their unscrupulous business practices of putting GM foods that have been approved for animal consumption in markets where it is likely to be consumed by human beings, a factor that might bring about some serious health problems. When framing GMO public policy, it would be essential to ensure that the opinions of all the parties involved in the GM food debate to be considered so that a more balanced policy can be created. This can be done through taking into consideration the opinions of the pro-GM foods group by allowing GM foods in the market but putting into practice tough measures such as the requirement that all GM foods be tested and have high scores before being approved for human consumption (Christoforou, 2004). Another requirement that can be implemented is the prosecution and handing down of tough penalties on those companies found to sell GM foods that have not been approved for human consumption. In this way, it can be possible to ensure that safety of the public from harmful GMOs that might be a serious public health concern. Moreover, it is also essential to put the opinions of anti-GM food groups into consideration and this can be done through making it a requirement that all foods that are sold on the market be clearly labeled as being either organic of GM foods because this will allow customers to make a conscious decision concerning whether to buy one product or the other (Andersen, 2010). Thus, a policy unifying the stances of both sides of the debate can be made and while not perfect, will ensure that they each get some of what they want. Hybrid seeds do represent a problem which is as serious as that represented by GM foods and this is mainly as a result of the possibility of their being hazardous to the environment in which they are grown. When hybrid seeds, which contain their own pesticides and herbicides, are grown, they might create a situation where they destroy the habitats of plants and insects which are essential within a certain environment (Dunfield and Germida, 2004). Thus, these seeds might put entire ecosystems in danger since the full extent of their effects is not actually known. Therefore, when making policy concerning hybrid seeds and vegetable, it should be a requirement that they all undergo conclusive tests to ensure that their effect on the environment is fully measured and all the risks known. After these tests have been conducted, based on the results, only the seeds and vegetables that have the least harmful effects on the environment and which are capable of reproducing should be allowed into farms because this will help in the achievement of food security while at the same time ensuring environmental safety. References Andersen, L.B. (2010). The EU Rules on Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods: Mission Accomplished? European Food and Feed Law Review: EFFL 5(3), 136-43. Caroll, A.B. & Buchholtz, A.K. (2010). Business & Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and Stakeholder Management, 8th Edition. Boston: South-Western Cengage Learning. Christoforou, T. (2004). The regulation of geneticallt modified organisms in the European Union: the interplay of science, law and politics. Common Market Law Review 41(3), 637-709. Dunfield, K.E. & Germida, J.J. (2004). Impact of Genetically Modified Crops on Soil- and Plant-Associated Microbial Communities. Journal of environmental quality 33(3), 806-15. Read More