Gabrielle Cuebas
Dr. Koh ENG 101
November 22, 2008
Essay # 5
For quite some time scientists have dealt with the controversy of the ethics of genetically
modified (GM) food. There are many objections to the use of “genetic technology in agriculture”
(753) because there are many potential harms. In Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods, Gary
Comstock analyzes how the “precautionary approach” (756) affects society’s attitude towards
GM foods. He also explains the reasons why his own negative attitude has changed towards GM
foods because of this “precautionary approach”
The potential harms to “humans… ecosystems… and animals” leaves room for many
objections (753). A greatly influential reason that GM foods are objected is because of religious
views. Many people consider scientists, that are using genetic technology to manipulate nature,
are attempting to play God’s role, and that its practices are unnatural. This cannot be an entirely
sufficient reason because there are too many different views of God that do not coincide.
Comstock does not entirely agree with GM foods, but argues that if we must use religion as a
significant reason in objecting GM foods, there is nothing wrong with expanding on our
“creative impulses” because it is part of our “inquisitive nature”, especially when it comes to
science (754). He believes that “… humans are made in the divine image. God desires that we
exercise the spark of divinity within us” (754).
Comstock argues that unnatural and religious objections “are unsound [because] they
lead to counterintuitive results” (755), and are “ambiguous and contentious” (754).Because of
“the weakness of the[se, and other], intrinsic objections”, Comstock has changed his views
against GM foods. People almost always take the precautionary approach when it comes to food
they eat because it concerns their health. When there is negative information thrown at us about a
certain food we are automatically opposed to it, even though there may be a positive diffuser.
The source of the information is usually insignificant.
Comstock uses a “Krispy Kreme doughnuts” example to explain the “precautionary
approach “(756). Eighteen doughnuts are placed on a table in a room. There would be no reason
for someone to go grab one and eat it. Now Comstock tells us to imagine a naked, crazy man
runs into the room, points to a specific doughnut, and exclaims, “This doughnut will cause
cancer. Avoid it at all costs, or die!” Because of this incident, people would rationally choose
other doughnuts over that one because they have the option. It does not matter whether this man
is telling the truth about that one doughnut or not because most people do not want to take the
risk.
Comstock uses this example in explaining the “precautionary approach” because it shows
how “powerful” food tainting is towards “determining consumer behavior” (756). It shows that
“a single person with a negative view about GM foods will be much more influential than many
people with a positive view” (756). Unfortunately this approach to GM foods is used so strongly
that it allows us to turn a blind eye to the fact that maybe “potential harms [to society] may be
minimal and outweighed by the benefits” (753). Another experiment was done where a product
was given to three groups of people. One group got negative information about the product and
rejected it. Another group got positive information and accepted it. The last group got both
positive and negative information and rejected it, not caring if the negative information came
from a credible source (756-757).
Many people that oppose GM foods “make unsupported claims, that GM foods will ruin
the world”, while those in favor “make unsupported claims that GM foods will feed the world”,
because a potential benefit of continuing the production of genetically modified food is that it
can help solve the problem of world hunger (758). Comstock poses this question: “Are we being
force to choose between two fundamental values, the value of free speech versus the value of
children’s lives (758)?” He feels there should be “open conversation” about this topic because
everyone should be allowed to include their opinions (758). The limit to their opinions,
Comstock believes, is that there should be some scientific background to their statements
because there would be chaos if people just stated their opinions based on emotions and because
they are allowed free speech.
When it comes to GM technology, Comstock changed his opinion based on “three
considerations”:
“(i) the right of people in various countries to choose to adopt GM tech. (human rights
principle),
(ii) the balance of likely benefits over harms to consumers and the environment from GM
tech. (utilitarianism)
(iii) the wisdom of encouraging discovery, innovations, and careful regulation of GM
tech. (759)”
He now accepts the ideas of producing genetically modified foods because there are many biased
reasons that this technology is opposed. While it is very important to recognize the possible
harms that can arise from genetic technology, we can not turn away from the possible benefits,
especially if they outweigh the harms. The “precautionary approach” is a reasonable way to
reject dangerous theories. But it becomes irrational when this approach is used with unsupported
claims. People must be open-minded about accepting information, specifically that which is
supported by scientific data, because they could be rejecting ideas that may have great benefits to
them and the environment.