Growing genetically-modified food is a "moral obligation"

The main argument against genetically-modified, or GM, food is that that it is harmful to our health. But Payam Moula, researcher at the Department of Philosophy at KTH, disagrees.

"This argument has no basis in reality," Moula says. "A huge research effort has been made in the area. The European Commission, for example, invested EUR 300 million in 130 research projects in order to seek evidence for this. Five hundred research groups have for 25 years conducted research to determine if genetically-modified food can affect people negatively. These studies have not been able to see that GM crops varieties are more harmful than any other kind of crop."

Given the evidence, he says we should asking instead about the risks of not using genetically modified foods.

Golden rice is genetically engineered to contain beta-carotene, which our bodies use to produce vitamin A. It was created specifically for humanitarian purposes, by transferring the same gene that gives carrots and squash their color. "About 600,000 children under the age of five die each year because of vitamin A deficiency," Moula says. "Golden rice was first engineered 15 years ago, yet it has not been approved."

He says that the current world food production is insufficient to supply the world's population, unless it could be reallocated. But in practice reallocation is not feasible.

The future also places greater demands on the global food production. Food will in time be even scarcer in developing countries.

"To supply the world's population by 2050 we will need to increase the amount of food produced by about 60 to 100 percent. And this upon roughly the same land areas used for farming today. Allowing genetically modified foods where it makes good sense is therefore our moral obligation."

Resistance to GM foods is based on fear and irrational arguments against "non-natural" food, Moula says.

"Much is about the feelings people have, regarding new technologies in food," he says. "From an ethical perspective, however, naturalness arguments are weak. One might ask what is unnatural and natural. Is all corn unnatural?

"We have changed and refined this crop for thousands of years. We have fertilized cultivation for a long time, and today we do it with the help of advanced products and technologies that can hardly be considered natural. But perhaps most importantly, there seems to be something that justifies why unnatural is bad. I usually refer to the philosopher John Stuart Mill. He said that it is irrational and immoral to strive for intervention in nature. Though, toxins, accidents and diseases are as natural, and we try to prevent and avoid all that."

He adds that while genetically modified food has become a charged political issue, the arguments are emotional and have become more ideologically driven than research based. Companies like Monsanto serve as effective punching bags in political debates, but awful examples in a philosophical argument.

"It is true that large companies that work with genetically modified food have made fewer good things. But to claim that the technology is therefore bad — that is not a good argument. We should not forget that food has a big place in our culture and is a significant part of our identity. This can include everything from veganism to ritual slaughter, to the man who becomes impatient because he doesn't get to grill."

Genetic transformation is the technique currently used to genetically modify crops, but Moula says there are many different plant breeding techniques.

"A grower can produce two crops that are identical and which use entirely different plant breeding techniques. One of them could be transgenesis, another may simply be selecting the crop with the best conditions. Today's regulation says that these should be treated differently even though they have identical properties. What is it then that's so unique about genetically-modified crops that allow them to be treated differently? It is highly unclear."

One way to deal with genetically modified food is to analyze each crop from an ethical perspective. "I advocate a case-by-case basis. We need to examine crops in terms of their impact on health, environment and climate. All individual crops, regardless of how they are produced, must be judged on their own merits. This is not particularly radical. That's how you usually work."

The environment is another area where the risks of genetically modified crops are raised. There is a fear that new crops will, if uncontrolled, harm the local ecosystem. These risks are to be taken seriously and the environment should always be included in the agricultural matters, regardless of the crop or technique discussed. But today there is a resistance to GM crops that can reduce the use of pesticides, fertilizer, irrigation and tillage. Moula believes this resistance is counterproductive.

At the same time he says that no one has a moral obligation to eat food that is genetically modified, or to grow it. We do not have to go and buy it in the store.

"But we should not ban research or the use of genetically modified food where it is really needed."

Research on genetically modified food is done all the time around the world, including in Sweden. At SLU researchers are working with GM potatoes. The point of the potato is that it has a low glycemic index. Moula says that research on genetically modified foods traditionally had farmers in focus. Now more products are beginning target consumers directly.

"Food additives and medications are already based on ingredients that are genetically modified. If you have been in the US then it is worth considering that you probably do eat such food as they have had large-scale cultivation since 1996. But there are criticisms worth taking seriously when it comes to the companies that worked on this: the power relationship between multinational companies and farmers is one such area, patent laws are another."

Because food production accounts for 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, genetically modified foods play a role in reducing greenhouse emissions. If, for example, crops are developed that produce fewer emissions in the long run, then agriculture can be more sustainable.

So GM food is the best solution to malnutrition and environmental problems simultaneously?

"Those who are against GM food tend to emphasize the redistribution of food as an argument. Let's go for it, too, if, when and where it works. Organic food is another argument. There we can also make an effort. Like in Sweden, where we have an abundance of food.

He believes, however, that this would not work in countries with favorable conditions for agriculture and where even minor price adjustments can have major consequences.

"That said, the one does not exclude the other. The situation is urgent and we need to do everything we can at the same time."

Payam Moula is part of the research program Mistra Biotech and currently working on her dissertation "Ethical Aspects of crop biotechnology in agriculture" at KTH.

Peter Larsson

For more information, contact Payam Moula at 073-215 38 65, 08 - 790 80 2 or payam.moula@abe.kth.se.

More in this series