Ethical Considerations at the Various Stages in the Development, Production, and Consumption of GM Crops

The aim of this paper is to clarify the ethical issuessurrounding GM crops by examining the various stages or levels intheir development, production, and consumption. Previous workabout the acceptability or non-acceptability of GM crops hastended to conflate these various levels, partly as a result ofwhich GM crops are all-too-often simply said to be ``good' or``bad.' There are, though, various problems with such a binarycategorization. I look in particular at the duties of scientists,companies, regulatory systems, farmers, retailers, and consumers.     

A Social Contract for Biotechnology: Shared Visions for Risky Technologies?

Future technological developmentsconcerning food, agriculture, and theenvironment face a gulf of social legitimationfrom a skeptical public and media, in the wakeof the crises of BSE, GM food, and foot andmouth disease in the UK (House of Lords, 2000). Keyethical issues were ignored by the bioindustry,regulators, and the Government, leaving alegacy of distrust. The paper examinesagricultural biotechnology in terms of a socialcontract, whose conditions would have to be fulfilled togain acceptance of novel applications. Variouscurrent and future GM applications areevaluated against these conditions. Successwould depend critically on how far a sharedvision can be found with the public. Tore-establish trust, significant changes areidentified in the planning and pursuit ofbiotechnology.     

Ethical Discourse on the Use of Genetically Modified Crops: A Review of Academic Publications in the Fields of Ecology and Environmental Ethics

The use of genetically modified plants in agriculture (GM crops) is controversially discussed in academic publications. Important issues are whether the release of GM crops is beneficial or harmful for the environment and therefore acceptable, and whether the modification of plants is ethically permissible per se. This study provides a comprehensive overview of the moral reasoning on the use of GM crops expressed in academic publications from 1975 to 2008. Environmental ethical aspects in the publications were investigated. Overall, 113 articles from 15 ecology, environmental ethics, and multidisciplinary science journals were systematically reviewed. Three types of moral concerns were used to structure the normative statements, moral notions, and moral issues found in the articles: concerns addressing consequences of the use of GM crops, concerns addressing the act (the technique itself), and concerns addressing the virtues of an actor. Articles addressing consequences (84%) dealt with general ecological and risk concerns or discussed specific ecological issues about the use of GM crops. Articles addressing the act (57%) dealt with the value of naturalness, the value of biotic entities, and conceptual reductionism, whereas articles addressing the actor (43%) dealt with virtues related to the handling of risks and the application of GM crops. The results of this study may help to structure the academic debate and contribute to a better understanding of moral concerns that are associated with the key aspects of the ethical theories of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.     

GM Crops: Patently Wrong?

This paper focuses on the ethical justifiability of patents on Genetically Modified (GM) crops. I argue that there are three distinguishing features of GM crops that make it unethical to grant patents on GM crops, even if we assume that the patent system is in general justified. The first half of the paper critiques David Resnik’s recent arguments in favor of patents on GM crops. Resnik argues that we should take a consequentialist approach to the issue, and that the best way to do so is to apply the Precautionary Principle, and that the Precautionary Principle, in this case, supports patents on GM crops. I argue that his argument in favor of a consequentialist treatment is invalid; his Precautionary Principle in any case appears to be incompatible with consequentialism; and his conception of reasonable precautions is too ill-defined to have any argumentative purchase. In the second half of the paper, I argue against GM crop patents, on three grounds. First, there is insufficient evidence to say whether allowing patents on GM crops will make research go faster than not having patents, whilst there is a good reason to think that, other things being equal, a society that allows patents on GM crops will be less just than one that does not. Second, even assuming that patents on GM crops will increase the pace of GM crop research, there is no social need to do so. Third, patents on GM crops will frequently have ethically unacceptable side effects.     

Ethical and Value-based Aspects of the European Commission's Precautionary Principle

In February 2000, the EuropeanCommission adopted a Communication on theprecautionary principle. This states how theCommission intends to apply the principle andestablishes guidelines for its application. Thedocument is intended to inform discussions oninternational agreements. In particular, itprovides a defense of European Union (EU)precautionary policies in case of tradedisputes, for example, in case the EU isaccused of imposing unfair trade barriers onexports of genetically-modified (GM) productsfrom the United States under the rules of theWorld Trade Organisation. In the communication,the Commission emphasizes the scientificaspects of the precautionary principle, perhapspartly to counter claims from US officials thatthe EU's reluctance to accept GM imports is notbased on science but is politically-motivated.However, a principle is by definition a moralguide to behavior. In other words, it is anethic. The precautionary principle should beviewed as a complement to science, to beinvoked when a lack of scientific evidencemeans that outcomes are uncertain. Anyinterpretation of this principle needs to placeat least as much emphasis on its ethical andvalue-based aspects as on its scientificjustification. The Commission's interpretationrisks undermining the painstaking progress madeamong European Union member states inresponding to public concern about GM crops andfood by adopting increased precaution. Thispaper explores the balance between thescientific and ethical/value-based aspects ofthe precautionary principle as set out in theCommission's communication, to make the casethat it is the ethical and value-based aspectsrather than the scientific aspects of theguidelines that need strengthening.     

The Leading Canadian NGOs’ Discourse on Fish Farming: From Ecocentric Intuitions to Biocentric Solutions

The development of the aquaculture industry in Canada has triggered a conflict of a scope never seen before. As stated in Young and Matthews’ The Aquaculture Controversy, this debate has “mushroomed over the past several decades to become one of the most bitter and stubborn face-offs over industrial development ever witnessed in Canada” (Young and Matthews in The aquaculture controversy in Canada. Activism, policy and contested science. UBC Press, Vancouver, p 3, 2010). It opposes a wide variety of actors: from industrial investors, scientists, politicians and environmentalists to Native associations and communities, citizens groups and local stakeholders. The opposition is fierce between those in favor of a flourishing and modern aquaculture of industrial nature and those who fear the dreadful consequences of such an industry. In particular, the possible implementation of biotechnology innovations, such as a genetically modified salmon, has made this debate coextensive with the GMO debate, thus multiplying the opposition’s spectrum of arguments against the industry. Throughout the debate, Canadian environmental NGOs like the Suzuki Foundation and Greenpeace Canada have assumed leadership over the opposition to aquaculture development with certain success. Their participation in the debate features numerous ethical concerns related to environmental health, a respect for wilderness and local human communities. Such a position can be associated overall with a form of ecocentric ethics or concern. Nevertheless, a careful examination of the technical solutions proposed by these NGOs reveals their embeddedness in biocentrism. Through the example taken from the Canadian debate on aquaculture development, this paper aims to highlight the conceptual difficulty of enacting ecocentric ethical positions beyond formal arguments. Because ecocentrism implies a true paradigm shift, not only in mentality, but also in the way we conceive our technical interventions in nature, biocentrism remains an important practical method to enact ethical positions related to environmental concerns in public debates.     

Ethical Consumption, Values Convergence/Divergence and Community Development

Ethical consumption is on the rise, however little is known about the degree and the implications of the sometime conflicting sets of values held by the broad category of consumers who report consuming ethically. This paper explores convergence and divergence of ethical consumption values through a study of organic, fair trade, and local food consumers in Colorado. Using survey and focus group results, we first examine demographic and attitudinal correlates of ethical consumption. We then report evidence that while many organic, fair trade, and local food consumers converge around similar values, some Colorado consumers support only local food, while opposing the consumption of organic and fair trade products. Next, we investigate how ethical consumers who converge and diverge frame their commitment to consuming ethically. The discussion and conclusion suggest that community development planners of projects that focus on ethical consumption will need to successfully traverse issues stemming from convergence and divergence to enjoy long-term sustained success.     

The transatlantic rift in genetically modified food policy

The regulatory structures underlying United States and European Union policies regarding genetically modified (GM) food and crops are fundamentally different. The US regulates GM foods and crops as end products, applying roughly the same regulatory framework that it does to non GM foods or crops. The EU, on the other hand, regulates products of agricultural biotechnology as the result of a specific production process. Accordingly, it has developed a network of rules that regulate GM foods and crops specifically. As a result, US regulation of GM foods and crops is relatively permissive, whereas EU regulation is relatively restrictive. Why are genetically modified food policies in the United States and the European Union so strikingly different? In the light of the recent World Trade Organization dispute on agricultural biotechnology, it may seem that economic interests are the driving force behind policies. While they are certainly part of the picture, the issue is far more complex. This paper argues that three different elements help explain differences between US and EU GM food policies. First, an investigation of US and European policies of the 1970s and 1980s on recombinant DNA research and of events leading up to early GM food and crop regulation allows a deeper understanding of current policy. Second, scrutinizing underlying values and norms can uncover the beliefs that condition current GM food and crop policy. Third, an analysis of involved actors’ views and levels of success in influencing policy is essential to understanding US and EU policies.     

Understanding the Scope of Farmer Perceptions of Risk: Considering Farmer Opinions on the Use of Genetically Modified (GM) Crops as a Stakeholder Voice in Policy

In the beginning, policy debates between critics and advocates of genetically modified (GM) crops focused on scientifically determined risks. Ten years later, the argument between environmentalists or consumers and regulators or industry has changed into a discussion about the implementation of more democratic policymaking about GM farming. A notable omission from the political debate about food biotechnology in the United States, however, is the opinion of farmers who cultivate the GM crops. Policymakers should value practical knowledge based on experiences from farmers, not only scientific industry reports or consumer product opinions. This project uses in-depth interviews to create an original mail survey that uses the practical discourse of farmers in order to explore the relationship of farmer attitudes and GM agriculture. Although national research indicates that larger yields are the most common reason for GM adoption, qualitative information suggest that the potential of GM crops to increase revenue per acre does not truly reflect all the concerns of modern farmers. For example, farmers who use GM seeds indicate that they constantly question the social impacts of their agricultural practices. As such, GM policies should be restructured as a political rationalization of both economic modeling and political theory because this research suggests that farmers’ business decisions are utility calucations that consider economics without ignoring environmental and political contexts. Farmers’ concerns about non-economic risks suggest that they need more information about GM crops and that governmental policies should respond to their interests, as they are more democratic or pluralistic than industry or consumer arguments.     

Are Scientists Right and Non-Scientists Wrong? Reflections on Discussions of GM

The aim of this article is to further our understanding of the “GM is unnatural” view, and of the critical response to it. While many people have been reported to hold the view that GM is unnatural, many policy-makers and their advisors have suggested that the view must be ignored or rejected, and that there are scientific reasons for doing so. Three “typical” examples of ways in which the “GM is unnatural” view has been treated by UK policy-makers and their advisors are explored. These are the Government’s position (DEFRA Report), the account of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, and the position of Nigel Halford, a scientist with an advisory role to the Government. I show that their accounts fail to mount a convincing critique. Then, I draw on an empirical research project held during  2003–2004 at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the north east of England. Scientists met with non-scientists in a range of facilitated one-to-one conversations (“exchanges”) on various environmental issues, one of which was on GM. Our findings show that some scientists who rejected the “GM is unnatural” view struggled to do so consistently. Their struggle is interpreted in terms of a conflict between a so-called “scientific” worldview, and a different worldview that underlies the concerns of those who held the “GM is unnatural” view. This worldview is explored further by an examination of their concerns. What distinguishes this worldview from the “scientific” worldview is that the instrumentalization of the nonhuman world is questioned to a larger extent. I conclude that, because the underlying concerns of those who held the “GM is unnatural” view were not with GM as such, yet with a worldview that was considered to be problematic, and of which many GM applications were held to be expressions, policy-makers and their advisors should reflect on the critical worldview of those who claim that GM is unnatural if they want to engage seriously with their concerns.     

城市垃圾分类与居民地方认同研究

垃圾无害化处理是环境治理不可或缺的一个环节，它不仅关系城市居民生存环境的健康程度，更直接影响公众对政府环境治理政策和治理效果的认知与评价。本文运用环境心理学理论，对折射出居民环境认知、个人偏好、预期目标和情感联系的地方认同进行问卷调查，发现社区居民对城市垃圾治理成效的评价及其对政府垃圾治理能力的评价与其地方认同呈正相关关系，同时，居民对政府关于垃圾治理法律法规的认同也能增强其地方认同感。本文建议，未来关于地方认同的研究需要聚焦于城市环境治理政策的传播效果，总结和归纳城市居民对环境治理成效的归因模式与其地方认同之间的交叉关系。     

河长制的得失、争议与完善

河长制从地方性实验到获得全国推广并正式写入法律,不过短短十年时间。河长制的成功之处在于解决了河湖管理保护"多龙治水"的困局,并调动了地方政府治水的积极性。但河长制也面临着高度依赖河长个人与考核制度的隐忧,其发展过程始终伴随着人治与法治之争、应急机制与长效机制之辩,以及重奖励轻惩罚、强化权力集中弱化公众参与的评价。提升与完善河长制可以从制度内与制度外两个方面着手:制度内的提升是指河长制内部机制的改良,包括考核制度的完善、公众参与水平的提高;制度外的提升是指与河长制配套的制度环境建设,包括环保行政队伍与行政执法力度的加强,以及与水环境治理相关的市场工具、政策工具与法律工具的综合 运用。     

"What Works Well; What Needs Improvement": Lessons in public consultation from British Columbia's resource planning processes

Resource planning and management in British Columbia, Canada, has been steadily moving towards more active public participation. While government agencies have long been required to consult the general public during the course of land or resource use planning, the 1990s brought in a period of more intense public involvement. In terms of resource planning, this led to the creation of several new planning processes. Given that there is now considerable experience with the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE) and the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) processes, it is time for an appraisal. In particular, the paper examines the public's perceptions of these processes with respect to 'what works well' and 'what needs improvement'. The results highlight a number of areas to which process designers and managers should direct attention. There are three key items of note. First, there are generally low levels of awareness by respondents of public consultation processes in their community. Second, there is a need for access to timely, relevant and readable information throughout the course of the process in order to keep participants and the public as up-to-date as possible. Finally, there must be greater clarity about the process itself, including mandates, participants and decision-making powers.     

Public perceptions and attitudes towards an established managed realignment scheme: Orplands,Essex, UK

Where appropriate, managed realignment is the preferred policy option for sustainable coastal defences in the UK, since it provides both economic and ecological advantages. Until recently however, research has failed to address the social implications of this policy option having only acknowledged that communities in general, show reluctance in conceding land to the sea. Orplands managed realignment scheme is the third in a series of case studies to address a variety of social issues, but with a particular focus on the public acceptance of schemes and public confidence in the Environment Agency. It is hypothesised that local residents will be more accepting of a realignment scheme the longer it is in the public domain, rather than at its inception or construction. This paper presents findings from the Orplands scheme and demonstrates that overall scheme acceptance was greater at this site in comparison to previous case studies. Despite this, respondents did not show any more confidence in the Environment Agency and this has been attributed to their general scepticism towards a statutory body and the lack of recent contact between the various stakeholders. It is suggested that the development of criteria for consultation and public participation would facilitate public acceptance of managed realignment schemes.     

Ethical Frameworks and Farmer Participation in Controversial Farming Practices

There are a number of agricultural farming practices that are controversial. These may include using chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, and planting genetically modified crops, as well as the decision to dehorn cattle rather than raise polled cattle breeds. We use data from a survey of Missouri crop and livestock producers to determine whether a farmer’s ethical framework affects his or her decision to engage in these practices. We find that a plurality of farmers prefer an agricultural policy that reflects principles based on rights rather than principles of utilitarianism or justice. Furthermore, after controlling for personal and farm characteristics, we find a positive correlation between farmers preferring a rights-based policy and a farmer’s use of chemical farm inputs and polled rather than horned cattle. We also find that a combination of ethical framework and farm and farmer characteristics correlate with decisions to use farm chemicals, while only farm and farmer characteristics affect the decision to plant GM crops and only a farmer’s ethical framework affects the decision to use polled cattle.     

Integrity and Rights of Plants: Ethical Notions in Organic Plant Breeding and Propagation

In addition to obviating the use of synthetic agrochemicals and emphasizing farming in accordance with agro-ecological guidelines, organic farming acknowledges the integrity of plants as an essential element of its natural approaches to crop production. For cultivated plants, integrity refers to their inherent nature, wholeness, completeness, species-specific characteristics, and their being in balance with their (organically farmed) environment, while accomplishing their “natural aim.” We argue that this integrity of plants has ethical value, distinguishing integrity of life, plant-typic integrity, genotypic integrity, and phenotypic integrity. We have developed qualitative criteria to ethically evaluate existing practices and have applied these criteria to assess whether current plant breeding and propagation techniques violate the integrity of crop plants. This process has resulted in a design of a holistic, scientific approach of organic plant breeding and seed production. Our evaluation has met considerable criticism from mainstream (crop) scientists. We respond to the following questions: (1). Can ethics be incorporated into objective crop sciences? (2). What is the nature of the intrinsic value of plants in organic farming? We argue that criteria to take integrity into account can only be assessed from a holistic perspective and we show that a holistic approach is needed to design such ethical notions in a consistent way. The ethical notions have been further elaborated by formulating human responsibility and respect towards crop plants. Responsibility and respect can only be shown by providing crop plants the right to be nurtured and to express natural behavior at all levels of integrity.     

Do We Care About Synbiodiversity? Questions Arising from an Investigation into Whether There are GM Crops in the Svalbard Global Seed Vault

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault provides a backup of seed collections from genebanks around the world. It’s unique character has made it iconic in the public imagination as a ‘Noah’s Ark’ for crop plants. Its remote location and strict controls on access have, however, also lent it an air of mystery, swirling with conspiracy theories. In this paper, I first clarify the aims of the Vault, the history of its development and the policies and practices of its current operation. Given concerns around its potential links to the biotechnology industry, I go on to ask whether GM crops are currently stored in the Vault. Presenting several reasons for why GM crops are formally excluded, while indicating the potential for both change and unintentional contamination, I am compelled to question whether GM crops should be excluded. Answering this requires an interrogation of their potential conservation value as modern contributors to crop biodiversity. In exploring this issue, I suggest that there has been surprisingly little discussion of the moral status and conservation value of bio-technological crop plants and indeed, of how we care for all the techno-lifeforms we are currently engaged in co-creating. I suggest that these are becoming important issues as biotechnological techniques and applications begin to rapidly evolve and diversify (e.g. through genome editing and synthetic biology). Emphasizing the scope for a refreshed interdisciplinary research agenda exploring the interface between biotechnology and biodiversity conservation, I conclude the article by proposing new concepts of synbiodiversity and symbiodiversity to encourage further debate.     

Journalism and Science: How to Erode the Idea of Knowledge

This paper discusses aspects of the relationship between the scientific community and the public at large. Inspired by the European public debate on genetically modified crops and food, ethical challenges to the scientific community are highlighted. This is done by a discussion of changes that are likely to occur to journalistic attitudes – mirroring changing attitudes in the wider society – towards science and scientific researchers. Two journalistic conventions – those of science transmission and of investigative journalism – are presented and discussed in relation to the present drive towards commercialization within the world of science: how are journalists from these different schools of thought likely to respond to the trend of commercialization? Likely journalistic reactions could, while maintaining the authority of the scientific method, be expected to undermine public trust in scientists. In the long term, this may lead to an erosion of the idea of knowledge as something that cannot simply be reduced to the outcome of negotiation between stakeholders. It is argued that science is likely to be depicted as a fallen angel. This may be countered, it is posited, by science turning human, by recognizing its membership of society, and by recognizing that such membership entails more than just commercial relations. To rethink its relationship with the public at large – and, in particular, to rethink the ideal of disinterested science – is an ethical challenge facing the scientific community.