The first article I will be looking at is entitled “The
Future of Food: An introduction to the Ethical Issues in Genetically Modified
Foods”[1].
This article is written by Margaret R.
McLean, who is the Ethics Centre Associate Director and Director of Bioethics
for the Santa Clara University. The article I am looking at is the adaptation
of a talk delivered at the conference "The Future of Food: Legal
and Ethical Challenges"[2] held
at the Santa Clara University on 15th April 2005.
The article starts
by highlighting common misconceptions with a series of statements to be
answered true or false. These statements help to show not only the lack of
understanding in this topic area, but also how relevant it is to people’s
lives. The relevance is shown by the outstanding fact that about 75% of
processed food produced in the US contains some genetically modified ingredients[3]. This means by taking the US as guidance,
almost everyone in civilised society has consumed some type of genetically
modified food.
The second
paragraph of the article talks about how humans have been modifying crops
before the modern developments in genetic engineering and biotechnology. It
talks about how early human agriculture, from over 8000 years ago, has been
developing plants for improved yields and resistance to pests, diseases and fluctuations in weather. McLean then
makes the link between these types of modification and modern genetic
biotechnology by saying “These age-old
techniques can now be complemented, supplemented, and perhaps supplanted by an
assortment of molecular "tools" that allow for the deletion or
insertion of a particular gene or genes to produce plants (animals and
microorganisms) with novel traits, such as resistance to briny conditions,
longer "shelf-life," or enhanced nutrient content.”[4]
This quote portrays the article’s
overall view very clearly. Modern genetic modification is something to
complement or maybe even replace that of traditional selective breeding, in
order to create a genotype that will benefit humans. McLean conveys the opinion
that genetic modification is just a faster, more precise method of selective
breeding. She makes this point by giving the example of developing a plant with
drought resistant properties in the third paragraph, saying that the outcome is
the same only faster by inserting the gene with the drought resistant
properties compared to “crosses with resistant
varieties, selection, and backcrossing”[5].
McLean also writes about a new type of genetically modified
crops that are designed to produce pharmaceuticals. A planned 50 hectares of
genetically modified rice was to be grown near San Diego by Ventria
Biosciences. Two types of rice were to be grown by Ventria, one was modified to
make human Lactoferrin (used to treat anaemia) and the other was modified to
produce lysozyme (used to treat diarrhoea). They were modified by inserting a
human gene into the rice plant. Both diarrhoea and anaemia are very common in
children under the age of 5 in developing counties (LEDCs). However the plans
were turned down due to fear of neighbouring rice being contaminated. This
shows what possible potential genetic modification can have and how it is being
affected by people’s fears of the unknown. The extent of these fears is shown
by the brewer Anheuser-Busch threatening to boycott rice from Missouri if
Ventria was allowed to set up the genetically modified rice plantations.
I believe McLean has shown a fair argument here, she has
given facts and not presented her opinion on these facts. For example, with the
genetically modified rice McLean has just told the reader what has happened and
allowed the reader to decide whether the prevention of these rice plantations
was justified. McLean has told us why they were refused permission to grow, but
has not forced any opinion on the reader. It is for this reason that I believe
this article to be unbiased and hence a credible source.
McLean has also presented possible risks of genetically
modified organisms in an easy to interpret list, with main categories split
into sub categories. For example the first possible risk is entitled “Potential
Risk to the environment and wildlife”[6].
Within this category there are four possible ways in which the environment and/
or environment is put at risk due to genetically modified organisms. This
therefore presents a clear and easy to read format, helping to show the McLean
wishes to clearly convey both sides of the argument. McLean makes the point
within this category that genes may ‘escape’ and find their way into different
members of the same species or into new species entirely. This could therefore
cause more harm than good if certain genes are transferred to certain
organisms. The next point McLean makes is genetically modified organisms could
compete or breed with wild species. This could threaten biodiversity and cause
problems in food chains and ecosystems. Another point given in this category
was that monogenetic organisms could potentially not react significantly to
environmental stresses; this could potentially lead to a food shortage (if the
organism was being used for food production). The last point given is the
potential effects coming into contact with the genetically modified organism
could have, for example if a genetically modified crop was consumed by a
species of bird.
These four points are presented in a non opinionated way and
help to show one side of the argument. This helps validate this source as
credible and free from bias.
McLean also gives another category as to why genetically
modified organisms may be a risk; this category is entitled “The Potential
Risks to Humans”[7].
This category is split into two subcategories. The first of which is the
potential of allergy stimulating genes being inserted into unrelated food
stuffs. This could cause a fatal allergic reaction. The other sub category
McLean presents is that genetically modified products may accidentally make
their way into the human food supply. These points are again presented in an
opinion free way allowing the reader to make up their own mind regarding
whether or not these potential risks are enough to discredit the benefits
associated with genetic modification.
The next risk category presented by McLean is “The potential
socio-economic effects”[8].
The first of two sub categories is that small scale farmers may be negatively
impacted by industrial market dominators. This may lead to loss traditional
farming methods and hence heritage. The second sub category is that the proprietary nature of biotechnology may slow down
research and patent protection may result in genetically modified crops being
refused entry into developing countries (LEDCs). I believe the second point
made is not as valid as the others made, however it is important to convey all
the possible potential risks involved with genetic modification, something which
I feel McLean has done very clearly and effectively, without displaying any
bias.
The final category given by McLean does not have any sub
categories and is entitled “the potential risk to
public trust generated in part by industry refusal to label GM foods as such”[9]. I don’t believe this to
be an adequate risk to associate with genetic modification; however its
inclusion helps to show how McLean is trying to present all possible potential
risks associated with genetic modification.
McLean therefore has presented all
the possible risks associated with genetic modification in a non opinionated
way, expressing each one clearly and factually; some also have an example to
help further understanding. After presenting these points McLean balances the
argument by presenting a series of points, conveyed in the same way as the
potential risks, which display the benefits of genetic modification, helping
make the article fair.
Wikipedia?
ReplyDeleteIt was an essay I wrote :)
ReplyDelete