World Hunger
GMOs as a possible solution

Greenpeace pushes Kraft to adopt noGMO policy

Greenpeace activists label foods

Greenpeace protests in Manila

Conspiracy? Targeting certain
companies
Original Articles: Greenpeace (The
Nation, Business World)
FDA made a statement that so far GMOs
bring no new risks to human health
 Greenpeace fights for labeling
 Europeans fighting on both sides
 Protestors are preventing the
production
 Positives: plants that can resist bugs, help
resist virus’, longer seasons, more
nutrients ect.
Opinion article: The World Needs
Genetically Modified Foods by: Robert
Paarlberg (Wall Street Journal)

GMOs will hurt the agricultural industry in
developing countries as well as the small
town farmers
 Expensive seeds and materials will
lead to rising cost of food
 Biotechnology patents don’t allow the
reproduction of their products

Negative article: Uganda;
We Do Not Need GMOs - Ugandan
Farmers by: East African Business
Week

What is the primary cause/purposed
solution for world hunger?

Who is responsible to aid in the
solution?

What is our role as affluent westerners?

Do people have the right to know
how their food is made?
Global Justice Issues

Paarlberg and GMO argument
suggests lack of production

Others suggest an overpopulated world

Pogge suggests radical
inequality/lack of basic rights

Singer suggests a lack of charity (or duty)
along with Pogge suggestions +
population control (surprisingly)
World Hunger

Droughts and frosts in certain developing
countries lead to extended periods of food
shortages and starvation

Developing countries aren’t
producing food at capacity

There is not enough useable land for
authentic agriculture
Paarlberg-production

There is evidence to support the fact that the
capacity and conditions for food production
are not sufficient for the growing population

Singer supports that the earth cannot
support a continued population growth

There are too many people for what our
earth naturally produces
Over populated world

radical inequality consists of people being
worse off, in every aspect of their life,
than the majority of the population with
no ability to change their situation. Mean
while, others have the ability to help
them, without becoming badly off
themselves

there is plenty of food for everyone to be
satisfied, the problem is unfair distribution
Pogge-Radical inequality

If it is in our power to prevent something bad
from happening without thereby sacrificing
anything of comparable moral importance,
we ought, morally, do it.

Humans are not fulfilling their duty to
eradicate inequality and “redistribute”
the wealth

Westerners don’t feel obligated to help those
far away
Singer- Duty to give (marginal
utility)





Can GMOs be a promising solution to world
hunger?
Are people being used as guinea pigs? Is
it more important to satisfy world
hunger
Should developed countries such as the US
and Europe by protesting GMOs?
Can developing country’s economies
adapt to the changes in their economy
and lifestyle with the introduction of
GMOs?
How can researchers justify creating patents
for GMOs and when they could potentially
feed millions of starving people?
Global Justice and GMOs

Immediate solution to hunger
/poverty Vs. experimenting with
health and enviornmental
GMOs a the property of the people
Vs. GMOs are the property of biochem
firms

Issues of Poverty + Rights

Do GMOs undermine Pogge?

GMOs= resources

Still radical inequality

Solution: GMO’s = stock dividends

Biochem firms positive duty/negative
Thomas Pogge and GMOs

Bioengineers' skills-marginal utility

Child drowning- life guard neglecting their
duty

Preventing death by hunger and famine has
priority over possible health risks

Affluent individuals need to focus on
contributing to solutions to poverty and
hunger
Singer and GMO’s

Identified in the articles: government
institutions, organizations (biochem
firms/Greenpeace), affluent
individuals

Supported by Pogge and Singer as
responsible
Responsibility

GMOs could be an immediate solution to
world hunger, therefore has higher moral
significance than possible health and
enviornment effects

It is unjust to prevent the worlds poor and
hungry from having access to these
products-therefore the biochem firms
have a positive duty to focus on a solution
and a negative duty to not have patents
In Final Analysis








Pogge, Thomas. Eradicating Systemic Poverty. Brief for a
Global Resource Dividend. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.,
2008. Print. Global Justice Reader.
The Nation, “Greenpeace warns over GMO cookies”,
The Nation Thailand October 8th 2005.
Singer, Peter. Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Pub., 2008. Print. Global Justice Reader.
The Nation, “GMO PROTEST: Greenpeace targets
Carrefour's shelves”, The Nation Thailand. March 21st
2002.
Paarlberg, Robert. "The World Needs Genetically Modified
Foods." Wall Street Journal. N.p., 14 Apr. 2013. Web. 15
Apr. 2013.
Macapagal-Aroyo, Gloria. “Greenpeace backs
labeling” BusinessWorld. Feb. 28th. 2002.
Nabwisso, Samuel. “We Do Not Need GMOs-Ugandan
Farmers” East African Business Week. Apr 01, 2013.
Windhoek. “GMOs to be Benchmarked”. Africa News.
April 18th, 2013.
Works cited