GMO's: The Whole Story--My Conclusion (Part 4 of 4)

My Conclusion

            In doing research on genetically modified organisms, it was interesting that each article listed pros and cons.  Many of them even pointed out that the use of GMOs is an ethical one.  Applying natural law theory to the dilemma of GMOs in general has me looking at the pros and cons of each side and using my reason to determine the best course of conduct (CCU, n.d.).  Taking into account all of the facts presented and my reconciliation to my personal ethical dilemmas there are still a few more points to weigh as I make my final decision regarding GMOs.

            The main area still to be addressed is a Biblical one.  Genesis 1:11-12 tells us that on the third day God created plants that would have seed according to their own kinds.  An apple tree would produce apples with seeds inside that would grow an apple tree.  Grasses would produce grass seed of the same kind as the parent plant.  God said that the way he created these plants was good.  Yes, natural hybrids are still possible, but they are like “rearranging the deck chairs on a familiar ship.  ‘In most cases…the genes and their products have been consumed for millennia’…” (Curry, 2013, p. 6), and “they can emerge, even without human’s intervention” (Sandu, 2010, p. 13).  Even with human intervention, hybridizing within the genetic lines that God created seems to be Biblically sound, but going outside of those boundaries can lead to some gray areas (see Deuteronomy 22:9-11 which talks about mixing seed within the same vineyard or plowing with two different kinds of animals).  Even Jacob used genetic diversity when tending Laban’s flocks to breed the specific traits he wanted (Genesis 30).  The worry becomes when humans try to become the creators rather than being the created.

            It is also interesting to see how prevalent biotech crops have become since they were first introduced but that the FDA has not changed their policy regarding GMOs since 1992 (Wohlers, 2013).  It seems to me that it is time for them to revisit their policies and make some updates regarding labeling, how tests are run and by whom, and how GMOs are reviewed.  Even the American Medical Association has asked the FDA “to ‘remain alert to new data’ on health consequences of bioengineered foods and to ‘update its policies accordingly’” (“Should You Worry,” 2013, p. 5).  This becomes especially important as gene stacking becomes more prevalent and each analysis has to be done individually on seeds and plants (Broeders, et al., 2012).  It is also important as GMOs are developed for industrial or pharmaceutical use but are not intended for the food supply as UGM can never be entirely ruled out (Broeders, et al., 2012).

            Weighing all of the above information, I have come to my own conclusion about GMOs.  While I still have a few areas to be worked out, I am glad that I was able to apply ethics to this area and come to my own decision.  As Palmer said, it is too easy to allow specialists, who often have “a political agenda to seize power at moments of social vulnerability,” to give us the answers (2007, p. 54).  “Modern knowledge has allowed us to manipulate the world but not to control its fate…Indeed, by disconnecting us from the world [we have been led] into actions so inharmonious with reality that catastrophe seems inevitable if we stay the course” (Palmer, 2007, p. 57).  It has even been said that future generations will look back on how we are manipulating the very core of life (DNA) and wonder at our audacity (Conrad, 2007).  In 1913, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis “wrote that it is time to know what substances we consume” (Wohlers, 2013, p. 74).  If that was true in 1913, how much more does it apply today?  Ethically it is time for us to evaluate the use of genetically modified organisms and their impact on our food, our health and our environment.

Key Terms
biotech (biotechnology): “the use of living cells, bacteria, etc., to make useful products (such as crops
            that insects are less likely to destroy or new kinds of medicine)” (Biotechnology, 2014).

BT (Bacillus thuringiensis): naturally occurring bacteria which lives in the soil; allowed to be sprayed on organic farms as an insecticide.

genetically engineered (GE): refers to seeds that “have somehow been altered by science in order to produce more positive results such as bigger size, brighter colors, or sweeter flavor” (Barnes, 2005, p. 53).

genetically modified organism (GMO): “the rapid and accurate alteration of genetic material in such a way that does not occur by natural recombination” (Wohlers, 2013, p. 74).  “The technology inserts genetic material from one species into another to give a crop or animal a new quality” (Mather, 2012, p. 1).

organic: “yielding, or involving the use of food produced with the use of feed or fertilizer of plant or animal origin without employment of chemically formulated fertilizers, growth stimulants, antibiotics, or pesticides” (Organic, 2014).

stacked hybrids: “varieties that have been manipulated to express several GM effects at once” (Mather, 2012, p. 3).

substantial equivalence: “’embodies the idea that existing organisms used as foods, or as a source of food, can be used as the basis for comparison when assessing the safety of human consumption of a food or food component that has been modified or is new’ (p. 14)” (Wohlers, 2013, p. 76).

transgenic crops: “being or used to produce an organism or cell of one species into which one or more genes of another species have been incorporated” (Transgenic, 2014).

unauthorized GMO (UGM): genetically modified plants found outside of their designated place.