|
CONTEMPORARY MANAGEMENT ISSUES: GENETIC MODIFICATION OF
FOOD INTRODUCTION At the beginning,
the following article focuses on a key controversy which concentrates on
positive and negative effects of genetic modification of foodstuffs. The debate
is based on the public and non-governmental organisations’ views. Then, the
article separately justifies the producers of genetically modified foods based
upon utilitarianism. On the other hand, the article evaluates the opponents’
actions that they attempt to prevent the production and promotion of
genetically modified foods through virtue ethics. These opponents are retailer,
government orgnaisation and non-governmental organisation. GENETIC
MODIFICATION OF FOOD DEBATE With the
development of biotechnology, genetic modification technology provides a
valuable new tool to move genes into new foodstuffs varieties to make
significant and targeted improvements. In 2003, 67.7 million hectares of GM
crops were planted globally, representing a 15% increase on 2002 plantings and
making 2003 the seventh consecutive year of greater than 10% growth. (Agricultural
biotechnology council, 2005) In the world, 18
countries grow GM crops and foods commercially, and seven million farmers
choose to grow GM crops and foods. (Agricultural biotechnology council, 2005)
The important point is that the global market value of these crops and foods
was estimated at $ 4.5 billion in 2003. (Agricultural biotechnology council,
2005) Nowadays, many organisations, such as manufacturers, retailers, produce
and sell some foods which contain genetic modification ingredients under the
global background. The potential
commercial use and sale of GM food has led to wide controversy. The following
shows the key issues to the GM food controversy. Firstly, the issue is about
whether GM food is good for human beings health. Secondly, the debate focuses
on whether GM food will lead to environmental damage. Dr Mae-Won Ho, director of the Contrarily, some
researchers think GM foods might be bad for human being health. They point out
there has not been enough research to evaluate the short-term and long term-
effects of GM foods on human health. The possibility of GM food risk could be
unforeseen and undesirable in the future. Furthermore, supporters claim some advantages of GM food use. Firstly, GM
food can provide some indirect health benefits, such as environmental and
economic benefits. For example, GM crops help support the world’s population in
a truly sustainable manner. (Gmnation,
2005) The reason is that the yield of GM crops is high and the food quality is modified. The important
point is that GM crops can benefit the environment by reducing the needs for
pesticides because of its resistance to disease. (Jones et al., 2000)
However, from the view of non-governmental organisaton, such as Sustainable
Agri-Food
Production and Consumption
Forum, argues the plant of GM food raises questions about possible contamination of
non-GM species. (Sustainable
Agri-Food Production and Consumption Forum, 2005)
There is also public concern about the potential risk of GM food to human
health and the environment although GM food has great potential to contribute
to human being, such as greater productivity or nutritional value. Similarly, Greenpeace
argues PROPONENT VIEW
BASED UPON UTILITARIANISM In food industry, manufacturers, as one of producers, are directly
related to GM food production because some foods contain GM ingredients. The
issue is that the action that manufacturers produce GM food is moral or not. In
other words, the action is right or wrong. The utilitarianism theory accepts
utility, or the greatest happiness principle, as the foundation of morals. (Fisher and Lovell, 2003) In a business context, maximising happiness
is the same as maximising profit or return on capital invested. (Fisher
and Lovell, 2003) Maximising profits is
an ultimate consequence for manufacturers. GM food production can bring
maximising profits for manufacturers because of obvious advantages of GM food,
such as greatest yield and quality. These advantages of GM food attract
customers to purchase them so that manufacturers can make enough profits from
GM food. Furthermore, the core concept of utilitarianism is utility.
Utilitarian points out that the action is moral and good if the action can
achieve to maximise utility. Their emphasis is clearly on consequence of
action. Then, the consequence of manufacturers producing GM food is that it
directly adds financial benefits. In addition, cost-benefit is a natural tool
of a utilitarian approach because it measures not only the direct costs and
benefits to an organisation but also externalities. (Fisher and Lovell,
2003) On the one hand, the benefit of
producing GM food is that GM foods and products increase manufacturers’
economic utility. Moreover, GM foods promise to provide social benefits for
manufacturers. Many GM crops and foods could boost prosperity in the developing
world and provide new choices for consumers, such as solving hunger. GM food is
one of ways to solving hunger. It is benefit for manufacturers if they consider
that solving hunger is their social responsibility. However, Greenpeace argues
that GM food can not solve hunger. Every country which hopes to properly solve
hunger needs to support sustainable farming that meets the needs of the local
people and environment. (Greenpeace, 2001) Furthermore,
there are no evidence to prove that GM crops and foods are sustainable and they
do not have negative effects on human health and environment. On the other
hand, the cost of producing GM food is that there exist some risks to
environment and human health. The cost is regarded as the potential cost
because there are not evidences to prove that GM food has negative effects on
environment and human health. So far, the benefit is greater than cost for
manufacturers. The consequence of producing GM food leads the greatest utility
to manufacturers. So, manufacturers’ action is moral. Similarly, farmer is also one of producers. It is predicted that 10
million farmers in 25 countries will be growing GM crops. (Agricultural biotechnology council, 2005)Is farmer’s action moral or right? Based
upon act utilitarianism, it focuses on the consequences of each individual act
and evaluates utility each time. Evidence is clear from some areas where
farmers have the choice to grow GM crops, and they choose to grow GM crops in
increasing volume, with double digit increases year after year (Agricultural
biotechnology council, 2005). Another
reason is that resource-poor farmers in developing world countries face unique
challenges and the improvements offered by the GM crops and food are
particularly important for farmers. (Agricultural biotechnology council,
2005)This does not happen if there is
not a real benefit to the farmers’ businesses, or a market for their produce. The
consequence of farmer’s action can maximise utility for farmers. Then, farmer’s
action is right and they are in favour of producing GM food. Furthermore,
compared with act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism looks at the consequences
of having everyone follow a particular rule and calculates the overall utility
of accepting or rejecting the rule. (Fisher and Lovell, 2003) In other words, rule utilitarianism says
utility should be applied to general rules rather than actions. (Fisher and
Lovell, 2003) Then,
there exists a rule for manufacturers. For example, the new European Union
established labeling regulations for GM food and the regulations has been
carried out. The consequences of adopting such a general rule for manufacturers
would be highly positive and would certainly establish public trust in GM food
industry. In other words, manufacturer’s action is moral because the
consequence of action is according to the general rule based upon rule
utilitarianism. OPPONENT VIEW BASED UPON VIRTUE The major food retailers quickly began to recognise and react to
customers concerns about foods which contained GM ingredients during 1990s.( Jones et al., 2000) For example, Safeway, one of UK retailers, recognise that some aspects
of genetic modification food may address some moral, ethical, religious and
food safety issues, and Sainsbury’s claimed to have eliminated GM ingredients
from all their own branded products and Iceland, the world’s retailer, claim to
remove GM ingredients from all its branded products and began the ban in mid
1998. (Jones et al., 2000) On the other hand, in April 2004, the new European Union labeling and
traceability regulations for genetically modified food (and animal feed) will
go into effect in all Member States and the regulations state that all food
ingredients made from genetically modified crops approved in the EU, should be
labeled. (Agricultural
biotechnology council, 2005) Most
importantly, the new labeling laws mean consumers can make an informed choice
which to buy and consume foods that are grown using GM ingredients. The actions
of these retailers and European Union protect consumers’ benefits and ensure
that consumers are indeed able to make an informed choice about what they buy. In addition, some non-governmental organisations, such as Greenpeace,
they are not in favour of planting and producing because they find GM crops and
foods have some potential risks to environment and human health. For instance,
genetically modified golden rice containing provitamin A will not solve the
problem of malnutrition and even have harms to children in developing
countries, according to Greenpeace. In addition, Greenpeace hopes that
government can take some actions, even Greenpeace calls on governments in the
world to now urgently check and control remaining imports of GM food and
commodities. (Greenpeace, 2001) Government also toke action to prevent GM crops
and foods production. For instance, Thai government’ decision to stop the
release of all GM crops into the environment and no longer allow any GM field
trials in Based upon virtue ethics approach, the actions of retailers, EU, and some
non-governmental organisations, such as Greenpeace, show their integrity and
honesty. Their actions represent their intrinsic values. The reason is that
virtue ethics focuses more on the integrity of the moral actor than on the
moral act itself although virtue ethics as a philosophical tradition began with
Aristotle. (Anon, 2005) Retailers face ethical issue or values conflict before
they decide to not sell GM foods. One ethical issue is that if retailers are
not honest, in other words, retailers continue selling GM foods which are not
labeled, and consumers can not get reasonable rights and benefits. Another
ethical issue has to sell GM foods in order to keep retailers’ interests and be
responsible for development of corporations. In other words, if they do not
sell GM food, retailers will have potential economic risks and suffer profit
losses. However, there are the ethical issues related to principles such as
honesty, loyalty and responsibility. Furthermore, this does not mean
consequences are not considered at all, but they are considered in the context
of assessing the actor’s character and integrity. (Anon, 2005)Ultimately,
retailers decide to protect consumer’s benefits and rights according to virtue
ethics perspective primarily focusing on actor’s character, motivations and
intentions. (Anon, 2005) Retailers’ behaviours
are satisfied with consumers’ needs and wants according to retailers’ honest
value and belief. So, virtue ethics help retailers to define what kind of
behaviours are acceptable and unacceptable. The behaviours of retailers show
they have a set of values and beliefs which influence retailers’ operations in
business. Otherwise, unacceptable behaviours will bring negative effects on
retailers. The behaviours of non-governmental organisations, such as Greenpeace, show
their justice for environmental sustainable development and human health. Greenpeace
think some possible dangers of GM crops and foods are unexpected because of
there has been no study of the long-terms risks of eating GM foods for humans. Compared
with retailers, those non-governmental organisations do not consider their
interests and benefits before they take such an action. The reason is that
those organisations are non-profits organisations and they hardly have value
conflict. So, their behaviours are totally from their justices and
responsibilities for human and environment. The behaviours of those
non-governmental organisations focus on moral agents rather than moral actions
according to virtue ethics which concentrates on the nature of the agent,
specifically on virtue. (Frasz,
2005) CONCLUSION The key debate
issue is about whether GM crops and foods have positive and negative effects on
environment and human beings health. The controversy is supported by profit
organisations, such as retailer, government organisations, non-governmental
organisations, such as Greenpeace, and GM food producer. The article separately
evaluates the actions or behaviours of proponent and opponent. On one hand, manufacturer
and farmer are in favour of producing and planting GM crops and foods. The
actions of proponent, such as manufacturer and farmer, are moral and right
according to utilitarianism. The reason is that the consequence of GM crops and
foods production and planting can maximise utility or benefits for manufacturer
and farmer. The core concept of utilitarianism looks at the consequence of
action and the utility of action determines rightness or wrongness of an
action. If the action maximise utility, the actor will take such an action. On
the other hand, the actions of opponent, such as retailer, Greenpeace and
government, are justified by virtue ethics. Their actions depend on their value
and belief, such as honesty, integrity and justice. Their behaviours and
actions are based upon virtue ethics which concentrates on agents rather than
action comparing with traditional ethical theories that they focus on the acts
of actors. (Word Count: 2361) |
|
|
