Toxic Tacos? The Case of Genetically Modified Foods In September 2000, the Genetically Engineered… 1 answer below »
Toxic Tacos? The Case of Genetically Modified Foods
In September 2000, the Genetically Engineered Food Alert Coalition, a coalition of environmental and consumer groups, accused Taco Bell of using StarLink genetically modified (GM) corn in their taco shells. The FDA had approved the StarLink gene for animal (but not human) consumption. The incident prompted the recall of 300 corn-based foods and alarmed the public about the possible dangers of genetically modified foods.1A 2007 study showed that the contamination led to a 6.8 percent decline in corn prices, and the suppression of corn prices lasted for a year.2The debates surrounding genetically modified food have continued to grow since the StarLink incident. According to David Roy of the Centre for Bioethics at the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal, the debates often produce“more heat than light.”They are more emotional in nature than they are intellectual. One of the main dangers of the GM food debate is that neither side is listening to the other: involved parties“tend to let debates become excessively polarized.”3
SOME OF THE CURRENT ARGUMENTS
Proponents for GM foods argue that their potential risks should be judged once scientific consensus has been reached. In the meantime, they say these GM crops will feed a hungry world by multiplying per-acre yields and, at the same time, reduce the need for herbicides and pesticides. GM detractors, on the other hand, claim that possible future benefits of the technology should not outweigh present dangers. They recommend a slowdown in order that society may digest innovations of past years. They want long-term outcomes to be“clearer” before anything else is done.Scientific Evidence.There are contrasting science-based arguments for both parties as well. Governments, often citing company studies, make the claim that GM crops are similar to non-GM ones and, therefore, do not pose a threat to consumers. Environmental watchdog groups, like the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a member of the Genetically Engineered Food Alert Coalition, disagree. Studies claiming similarity between GM and non-GM crops, they say, are flawed and conclude nontoxicity without sufficient evidence.4
GOING TO EXTREMES?
Neither pole is exempt from accusations of extremist thinking. Anti-”GMers” believe that researchers and developers of new technology promise too much. In recent years, a variety of plants that produce their own pesticide—as well as herbicide-resistant seed and plants, and others with more“exotic” features—have made it to the marketplace where their benefits are lauded and their deficits seem nonexistent. But, ask GM food opponents, has testing been sufficiently long term to test environmental impact thoroughly? Have possible dangers to wildlife and plants that consume or ingest GM food been tested? What is the effect of that food as it moves through the food chain? Has gene flow been controlled? Some say that new reports provide evidence that studies are often too limited in both space and time to reach a conclusion.5
Industry’s Response.GM proponents respond that their detractors often exaggerate environmental hazards, do not substantiate their claims with scientific evidence, and are simply reacting out of fear. Those who stand by GM technology then point to examinations by government agencies “so long and rigorous that many standard foods wouldn’t pass.” Their field research never uncovers even a slight headache.
Some even say it would be wrong to try to replicate the research.6
THE PROBLEM CONTINUES
In September 2006, a contaminated rice scandal bore an eerie resemblance to the StarLink situation. Greenpeace found U.S. rice on European store shelves that contained illegally genetically engineered rice.The German company Bayerwas responsible for the contamination. They had ended theirU.S.
field trials of LL601 and LL604 over five years earlier, but some of the LL601 rice escaped the field trials and contaminated conventional U.S. rice fields.
In response to this contamination, Ebro Puleva, the world’s largest rice importer, stopped the shipment of U.S. rice to Europe. LL601 rice had not been approved for human consumption when Bayer conducted their trials. When it was found that the genetically altered rice infiltrated the U.S. conventional rice crop, Bayer hastily filed an application for approval by the USDA. The USDA approved LL601 for human consumption in November 2006. No other country in the world has approved LL601 for human consumption.
Neither the United States nor any other country has approved LL604 for human consumption.7
Questions for Discussion
1. What are the ethical issues in this case?
2. Do you think that either group, pro-GM or anti-GM foods, is correct while the other group is wrong? If so, what reasoning do you give for supporting the position of one group over the other? Is it possible for both to be right? What ethical concepts help you decide?
3. Is there any way to bridge the gap between these groups? If so, what would the advantages and disadvantages be?
4. If you were crafting GMO (genetically modified organism) public policy, what would you recommend?
Case Endnotes
1.”The StarLink Fallout,”Successful Farming(January 2001), 33–39.
2. Colin A. Carter and Aaron Smith,“Estimating the Market Effect of a Food Scare: The Case of Genetically Modified StarLink Corn,” Review of Economics & Statistics(August 2007), 522–533.
3.“Biotechnology and Bioethics,”MacLean’s(November 5, 2001), 38.
4. Geoffrey Lean,“Ask No Questions, Hear No Truths; Geoffrey Lean on the Scandalous Treatment of a Scientist Who Dared to Cast Doubt on the Safety of GM Foods,” New Statesman(September 24, 2001).
5.Ibid.
6.“Biotechnology and Bioethics,”38.
7. Marc Gunther,“Attack of the Mutant Rice.”
Fortune(July 9, 2007), 20–25;“Une Contamination De Riz Par Des OgmEst Decouverte Dans Trois Pays D’europe,” Le Monde(September 7, 2006), 7;“Banned: GE Rice Imports,”http://
www.greenpeace.org/international/news/banned-29096; http://www.jlbreport.com/ 2007/08/16/cases-against-bayer-cropscienceconsolidated-in-stlouis-federal-court/.
