The Ethical Landscape of Genetically Modified Crops

If plant breeding simply relied upon the selection of individual plants from a variety of naturally occurring plants, then one might say that the practice was natural, in the sense that there was no human intervention beyond the mere selection of desirable specimens. However, since the discovery of Mendel’s laws, plant breeding has become scientific.

The Ethical Landscape of Genetically Modified Crops

 

I was in high school the first time I heard the word "GMO", I was reading a punch newspaper and came across it, I thought it was an interesting concept, and a few years down the line, I graduated from the university with a degree in Biotechnology and Genetics.

 

The population is on the rise, the climate is changing, and what used to be 10 years back feels so distant now, things are changing and they are changing fast.

 

To the average Nigerian the word 'GMO' is poison, they hear the word and the first thought that comes to their mind is cancer. They dread it and run from it citing various reasons.

 

The question is are their fears justified or are they just paranoid? Let's find out.

 

1: Unnatural

One reaction to GM crops is that they are in some sense ‘unnatural’ and that it is wrong in itself to change the ‘essence’ of species or to interfere with the natural order. This is a widespread sentiment: 'Let us leave nature for God'.

 

Many people think that breaches involved in genetic modification represented an improper tampering with nature. But when we come to think of it, any form of plant breeding can be regarded as unnatural.

To be sure, if plant breeding simply relied upon the selection of individual plants from a variety of naturally occurring plants, then one might say that the practice was natural, in the sense that there was no human intervention beyond the mere selection of desirable specimens. However, since the discovery of Mendel’s laws, plant breeding has become scientific.

 

The difficulty of distinguishing GM as ‘unnatural’ from conventional forms of plant breeding as ‘natural’ is enhanced by the fact that GM may be used as a technology to produce traits or characteristics in plants that could have been produced by conventional plant breeding only more speedily or at less cost.

 

One form of GM plant breeding that to the layperson may seem unnatural is the introduction of genetic material from non-plant species, for example in the case of Bt crops where bacterial gene sequences have been used or the use of genetic material from salmon into strawberries.

 

These sorts of transformations would not be possible without advanced genetic modification techniques. However, the mixing of genetic material across very different species occurs in nature without human intervention, as in the mixing of genetic material from humans and animals in viruses.

 

One concern about the unnaturalness of GM techniques pertains not to their mode of production but to their possible effects, in particular cross-pollination with non-GM crops in the wild.

 

However, this view can only make sense in a general form if non-GM crops are seen as the product of nature and GM crops are seen as artificial, but that view ignores the fact that conventionally bred crops are unnatural by the same test as GM crops.

 

To hold otherwise is to hold that there is an unaltered realm of nature. The argument that it would be wrong to introduce GM crops because the technology results in what is ‘unnatural’ relies on the assumption that it is wrong to intervene in nature.

 

2: Safety

Another common reason people fear GMOs is the issue of safety. It may be that the order of nature needs to be respected because biological and ecological systems are relatively robust and predictable, and so pose few risks for humans, who have after all evolved with those environments.

 

Horizontal Gene transfer does occur in nature but over a long time scale, whereas with genetic modification the transfer of genetic material is sudden so that if GM plants are released into the environment, biological and ecological systems might not be sufficiently adapted to integrate the plants.

 

Of course, the introduction of any plant, however, produced, can have untoward effects on the environment. The introduction of the rhododendron, which originated in Spain and Portugal, or of Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) into the UK resulted in a significant loss of biodiversity.

 

However, it may be argued that the advantages of GM technology, in particular, its speed and power, are precisely the features that should make one skeptical of its use.

 

3: loss of biodiversity

Biodiversity is what makes life on earth possible, without the diverse relationship between living organisms, most of what we see cannot be possible. Gene flow occurs in nature of course, and is responsible for the wide variety of plants that have evolved. That gene flow occurred in the case of GM maize and native Mexican maize landraces in Oaxaca has not been disputed.

 

The question has been over the threat of that gene flow to genetic diversity. GM crops ought not to be used without monitoring and the establishment of comprehensive seed banks to conserve the genetic resources of crop plants and their relatives is of crucial importance.

 

More generally, it would be part of a precautionary approach to developing GM crops first in the laboratory and then in field trials before going to large-scale production, but this sequence is the one that is good practice in plant breeding in any case.

 

4: Prohibition of importation of GMOs from developing countries.

It is the sole aim of governments to protect its country and citizens and whether this protection affects another country adversely is not the concern of the governments, and this is a big concern for developing countries.

Developed country's agricultural processes have come a long way and are vastly efficient and due to this efficiency, some developed countries don’t see the need for GMOs since the solutions offered by GMOs can be tackled with efficiency. For example, the EU regulations on GM foods make it impossible for farmers in developing countries to export to the EU, and this is a serious problem for developing African countries.

 

 

5: Impact on human health.

Health is life! One of the most important issues against GMOs is its impact on human health. Allegations such as GMOs causing cancer have been offered and have not withstood scrutiny against the lack of evidence relating to health risks, the 2004 working party was impressed by the potential of GM technology to enhance micronutrients and took as one of its case studies the production of Golden Rice.

 

6: Extinction of traditional seeds

Imagine a distant future where traditional seeds cannot be planted, a future where you cannot grow your garden, or where a farmer cannot keep the seeds of a previous harvest to be planted by the next season, in this future, you have to buy your seeds from large conglomerate and return the next season to buy the same seed again. These are the imaginations of some GMO critics.

 

The public debate about GM crops is therefore the danger arising from monopolistic control of the technology. The concern is that large private seed producers will put themselves in a position where they can exploit small farmers to the disadvantage of the latter.

 

However, when it considered this matter, the 2004 Working Party did not think that contemporary plant breeding practice was likely to be such a threat for the obvious reason that no form of high-technology plant breeding prevents farmers from retaining and re-sowing their seed varieties or landraces if that is what they choose to do.

 

Conversely, if new or improved seeds are preferred by farmers, then it is entirely their concern, provided that environmental responsibilities are not at issue.

 

Further evidence on this point comes from the use of Bt cotton in China, where the working party noted that, although seed costs were more than four times higher than the non-Bt varieties, the overall net revenues from the Bt variety were greater because of savings in pesticides and fertilizers. In short, the development of GM crops will confront resource-poor farmers with a wider range of commercial options

 

It is also worth noting that one factor leading to the monopoly of commercial seed production is strong regulatory requirements because it is larger companies that can manage the obligations to those requirements.

 

Conclusion

 

There is no doubt that there is some merit to the ethical use of GMOs however there is no obvious easy solution to this problem except so far as the technology develops we learn more about the environmental risks that may or may not be associated with particular GM crop varieties and formulate the solutions. We mustn't place the cart before the horse.

 

The number of farmers in developing countries using GM crops has more than doubled and there has been a three-fold increase in acreage, with the most common crops being soybean, maize, and cotton.

 

This is evidence that farmers are finding it advantageous to take advantage of the technology. The moral imperative is to ensure that they are in a position both to have access to the technology and to make a choice about its use in the light of their circumstances.

 

References

Nuffield Council on Bioethics, (2004) The Use of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries. Nuffield Council on Bioethics Available at http://www. nuffieldbioethics.org