The situation in which the ethical issue around genetically modified organisms (GMO) has been subjected to criticism has equally been an Iceberg for society; it has also caused fear from different areas of society. To sum it up, the goal is to make a trade-off by assessing the benefits and threats of genetically modified organisms in the lives of farmers or the food industry in general. This upcoming discussion covers the topics that are of concern to the interests of many, the technology companies, farmers, consumers, environmental institutions, and policymakers, as they differ in their viewpoints. At this point, they all have their own opinions and beliefs, but what they all want is their place. This essay will target the sophisticated question of GMOs and the showing of the stakes, ethics, and solutions from the standpoint of the academic framework.
Scenario Description
Biotech companies have taken a leading position in gene-engineered seeds and crops that they produce and market as a way of increasing crop yields and improving resistance as well as nutrient additions. These GMOs are species that originate from the technology involving the incorporation of genetic material from other organisms into the genetic framework of a specified arrangement and, therefore, exhibiting desired traits. According to Kunyanga Nkirote Catherine et al. (2024), scholars asserted that most critics are of the opinion that GMOs can resolve the global food shortage and reduce the use of harmful pesticides. In contrast, the opponents argue that GM is unsafe for human health, the environment, and justice.
Key Stakeholders
The ethical dilemma surrounding GMOs involves diverse stakeholders with varying interests: a market-driven biotechnology industry that is enhancing its products and marketing gene-modified goods so that consumers will buy them along with the conventionally grown crops. The environment activists also have their influence in the policy-making so that the authorities can make the proper assessment and regulation. However, each of the stakeholders will be employing its strategy. Thus, the dialog between many countries of genetic engineering in agriculture is able to move in various directions, so it is composed of more than one aspect. This is the reason why this matter would be complicated, requiring a balanced approach in coming up with a solution to accommodate the concerns of the affected parties.
Ethical Theories and Analysis
Utilitarianism and Consequences
From a practical perspective, which focuses on maximizing overall societal well-being and minimizing harm, proponents of GMOs highlight their potential to increase food production, improve nutrition, and reduce pesticide use, benefiting a larger population. Critics, however, argue that the potential long-term risks to human health and the environment outweigh the perceived benefits, and thus, the introduction of GMOs fails to maximize overall utility.
Deontology and Individual Rights
Deontological ethical philosophy, which is based on the principle of duty, rights, and respect for human dignity, takes into consideration the intrinsic rights of individuals as well as the connected responsibilities of acting accordingly. Pro-genetically modified organisms (GMO) forces point out the fact that genetic organism modification may contribute to the availability of enough food for millions of people. The other side, for their part, spotlights the possible violations of the human right of autonomy and, while acknowledging the right of consumers to know about GMOs, stresses the fact that consumers have the right to make informed choices.
Virtue Ethics and Moral Character
Virtue ethics emphasizes cultivating virtues such as honesty, integrity, and compassion. Supporters of GMOs argue that using biotechnology to address global hunger and improve food security is a virtuous act of compassion (Nyasha et al. et al., 2022). Critics, however, question the integrity and transparency of biotechnology companies and their motives, suggesting that pursuing profit may take precedence over ethical considerations.
Environmental Ethics and Ecological Preservation
Sustainable, ethical practices are the principles based on humans accepting their moral obligation to preserve and restore nature and, at the same time, to evaluate human activities and emissions detrimental to both biodiversity and ecosystems. The advocates of GMOs oppose the process on the basis of some of the dangerous risks, such as non-target organisms and the development of herbicide-resistant weeds with the possibility of gene infusion in non-GMO crops that can disrupt the ecosystem and devastate biodiversity(Cheng, 2024).
Critical Analysis and Moral Decision-Making
Last but not least, an ethical viewpoint on the GMO area that uses thoughtful and controlled techniques should be considered along with several positions. On the one hand, I am conscious of the fact that GMOs could be life savers by minimizing the food shortage and the level of chemical pollution. On the other hand, I am scared of the potential ill effects on the conservation of humanity’s health and the environment. The most important one in support of the statement that the environmental damage and adverse health impacts to humans in the long-term predominates over the short-term benefit of more yield in agriculture practice is practice. Therefore, applying the “precautionary principle” seems to be the most appropriate option since the consequences of introduction into the environment may include irreversible and catastrophic destruction. A part of the deontology theories could be an upshot of the imperceptible nature of GMOs, the violation of individuality because of the lack of proper labeling and the information on alternatives to those GMOs being not provided. This knowledge will help consumers in making choices whether they want to purchase such products or not (Marko et al., 2023). In virtue ethics, earning transparency and truthfulness of biotechnology firms are critical issues of the ethicality and authenticity of the motives. The generation of features of ethics such as love and justice calls for scrutiny of the possible impacts of genetically engineered organisms (GEO) on powerless groups and future generations.
Environmental ethics put forward a strong claim that GMOs should not be released into the environment. This is because the GMOs present possible adverse effects such as genetic contamination, ecological disruption, and biodiversity loss. Nature itself, with its function to preserve ecosystem health, is also precious and, therefore, is wildly appreciated. Therefore, I would come up with an ethical argument calling precautionary approach and highly controlled GMO production and usage following my reasoning. The safety of the health and environment should be put into consideration before large-scale commercialization of GMOs can be undertaken. Therefore, scientific studies should be based on rigorous, independent, and long-term scientific studies. Labeling and GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) transparency should be obligatory, and consumers’ freedom of choice should be sought regarding the preferred consumption of their food products, per individual values and beliefs in reference to Zhang et al. (2020).
Counterarguments
Dissenters may argue that the use of a precautionary approach against GMOs might become a factor, which will inevitably slow down the speed, if not stop altogether, the efforts aimed at resolving the food security problems through the increase of yield and the adaptation of crops to climate change and the growing population. On the other hand, there were many studies of the nature of the potential dangers of GMOs in the past, and decision-making experts in many countries were of the opinion that they are safe. The proponents of GMOs might highlight that benefits derived from higher yields and using fewer pesticides greatly outweigh the minimal or controllable risks they may perceive (Brookes, 2022). They may detail prospects for farmers in economic terms and also the fact that the diet and drought vulnerability of crops could improve with this innovation.
Reflection
The complexity of ethical decision-making in the case of genetically modified foods is one of the challenges as well. It implies a complete examination of both sides of the coin with regard to pros and cons while ensuring that everyone’s views are considered and that many ethical principles and norms follow different paths. My moral rationality and ethical philosophy have called me to rapidly choose between the concern principle and the health and safety of the planet. I am aware that excess regulation of GMOs may accompany its obstacles and drawbacks, and in such a way, the matter of food safety could be resolved to a certain degree. The ethics process in this field is complete with manifesting ceaseless vigilance, openness, and commitment to the proper use of science. The capacity to both listen to novel views and facts and use humanism and environment-friendly approaches to determine the way forward should be highly valued.
Conclusion
An ethical question associated with GMOs has a multi-dimensional nature and requires not only an extensive but also an elaborate approach. This paper has examined the ethical problem of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which has led to the inflammation that is raging the various sectors of society. Ultimately, the problem is that there is a complex conundrum surrounding the merits and drawbacks of GMOs in agriculture and food production. At the same time, simultaneously, these risks may have an adverse effect on health, the environment, and morals. On the other hand, we have examined different opinions of the leading players in this situation and applied utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, and environmental ethics to analyze the ethics of the dilemma. By prioritizing sound scientific research, transparency, and respecting human health and the environment, the process of navigating the complicated ethical landscape is more straightforward because the task of tackling the global food security questions and the ethical issues is performed correctly.
References
Brookes, G. (2022). Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Use 1996–2020: Environmental Impacts Associated with Pesticide Use Change. GM Crops & Food, 13(1), 262–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2118497
Cheng, X. (2024). Networked framing of GMO risks and discussion fragmentation on Chinese social media: a dynamic perspective. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02564-3
Kunyanga Nkirote Catherine, B. Roy Mugiira, & N. Josephat Muchiri. (2024). Public Perception of Genetically Modified Organisms and the Implementation of Biosafety Measures in Kenya. Advances in Agriculture, 2024, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5544617
Marko Šostar, & Vladimir Ristanović. (2023). Assessment of Influencing Factors on Consumer Behavior Using the AHP Model. Sustainability, 15(13), 10341–10341. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310341
Nyasha John Kavhiza, Meisam Zargar, Svetlana Igorevna Prikhodko, Elena Nikolaevna Pakina, Kheda Magomed-Salihovna Murtazova, & Magomed Ramzanovich Nakhaev. (2022). Improving Crop Productivity and Ensuring Food Security by Adopting Genetically Modified Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agronomy, 12(2), 439–439. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020439
Zhang, M., Fan, Y., Chen, C., Cao, J., & Pu, H. (2020). Consumer perception, mandatory labeling, and traceability of GM soybean oil: evidence from Chinese urban consumers. GM Crops & Food, 12(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2020.1807852
write