The High Cost of High-Tech Foods
The High Cost of High-Tech Foods 1) What are the ethical issues in this case?
I think the main ethical issue in this case is the fact that food not approved for human consumption was allowed to be given to humans. Before humans are allowed to be given these foods, long term studies should be conducted. 2) Do you think 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?
I believe both are right to some extent. I think that once approved for human consumption the upside of GM foods will be tremendous. GM foods can feed way more people per acre than organic food. Bugs and animals will eat less, leaving more for human consumption. GM foods are able to be grown in areas that other foods do not grow as well. The overall cost of food will go down, as are ability to feed a growing human population will go up. However, I do see a point to the anti-GM side for now. Not enough is known about possible effects of the food. If we started to introduce this food now, in five years half the human population could have cancer or some other side effect of these foods. After sufficient testing, I think GM foods are in the future for the world. 3) Is there any way to bridge the gap between these groups? If so, what would the advantages and disadvantages be?
I don’t believe there is any way to bridge the gap between these groups. Even if approved by the FDA for human consumption, environmentalist and other groups will still worry about things like cross breeding into organic plants and possible effects to the food chain. There would be great advantages if they were to work together, possibly developing a way to make everyone happy. Maybe they can alter the plant to produce more, but not produce natural pesticides or introduce certain genes from other types
I think the main ethical issue in this case is the fact that food not approved for human consumption was allowed to be given to humans. Before humans are allowed to be given these foods, long term studies should be conducted. 2) Do you think 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?
I believe both are right to some extent. I think that once approved for human consumption the upside of GM foods will be tremendous. GM foods can feed way more people per acre than organic food. Bugs and animals will eat less, leaving more for human consumption. GM foods are able to be grown in areas that other foods do not grow as well. The overall cost of food will go down, as are ability to feed a growing human population will go up. However, I do see a point to the anti-GM side for now. Not enough is known about possible effects of the food. If we started to introduce this food now, in five years half the human population could have cancer or some other side effect of these foods. After sufficient testing, I think GM foods are in the future for the world. 3) Is there any way to bridge the gap between these groups? If so, what would the advantages and disadvantages be?
I don’t believe there is any way to bridge the gap between these groups. Even if approved by the FDA for human consumption, environmentalist and other groups will still worry about things like cross breeding into organic plants and possible effects to the food chain. There would be great advantages if they were to work together, possibly developing a way to make everyone happy. Maybe they can alter the plant to produce more, but not produce natural pesticides or introduce certain genes from other types