Monsanto & GMO ethical Issues
- Monsanto & GMO Ethical Issues -
What Ought To Be
Based on each of the factors and issues presented in this case, people have a right to know and a right to be informed on what they are actually purchasing and overall what they are putting into their bodies as well as the potential health risks. Yes, as stated in this case, there are many benefits to Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms, but what is known about the underlying health effects is little to none. According to the European Union's European Commission on Health and Consumers, GM foods and organism are to be labeled in order to provide the utmost safety for the populations.
“In order to ensure that the development of modern biotechnology, and more specifically of GMOs, takes place in complete safety, the European Union has established a legal framework regulating genetically modified (GM) food and feed in the EU. This framework pursues the global objective of ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health and welfare, environment and consumer interests, whilst ensuring that the internal market works effectively” (European Commission).
Clearly the EU sees the reality of GMOs and are taking the necessary precautions to keep the people not only aware, but also safe from potential conflicts. The technology is too premature and the welfare of the people is far more important than the potential benefits GMOs have to offer. Looking at the issue of labeling with a Kantian or Rawlsian perspective may bring about the best way to solve the issue. Kant’s theory discusses using humanity as an end as opposed to a means to an end. Opponents and proponents of GMO’s would agree to labeling if it were a discreet yet clear labeling and if it weren't used as a scare tactic to alarm consumers. We believe that everyone would agree to this. Through the Rawlsian perspective, this type of discreet yet clear labeling would reach an end that was mutually accepted by both GMO producers and consumers. This
What Ought To Be
Based on each of the factors and issues presented in this case, people have a right to know and a right to be informed on what they are actually purchasing and overall what they are putting into their bodies as well as the potential health risks. Yes, as stated in this case, there are many benefits to Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms, but what is known about the underlying health effects is little to none. According to the European Union's European Commission on Health and Consumers, GM foods and organism are to be labeled in order to provide the utmost safety for the populations.
“In order to ensure that the development of modern biotechnology, and more specifically of GMOs, takes place in complete safety, the European Union has established a legal framework regulating genetically modified (GM) food and feed in the EU. This framework pursues the global objective of ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health and welfare, environment and consumer interests, whilst ensuring that the internal market works effectively” (European Commission).
Clearly the EU sees the reality of GMOs and are taking the necessary precautions to keep the people not only aware, but also safe from potential conflicts. The technology is too premature and the welfare of the people is far more important than the potential benefits GMOs have to offer. Looking at the issue of labeling with a Kantian or Rawlsian perspective may bring about the best way to solve the issue. Kant’s theory discusses using humanity as an end as opposed to a means to an end. Opponents and proponents of GMO’s would agree to labeling if it were a discreet yet clear labeling and if it weren't used as a scare tactic to alarm consumers. We believe that everyone would agree to this. Through the Rawlsian perspective, this type of discreet yet clear labeling would reach an end that was mutually accepted by both GMO producers and consumers. This