1) What are the ethical issues in this case? There are a few ethical issues in this case, making genetically engineered food and distributing to the public without the publics knowledge is unethical. Another ethical issue is not knowing what side affects of the engineered food will do to humans in the long term. It is still not determined whether or not some of these GM foods will cause health problems in humans in the long run and should be tested like new drug have to be tested. It seems to me that the government is not as strict on GM foods like they are on new drugs being tested. ) Do you think either group, pro-GM or anti-GM foods, is correct while the other group is wrong? If so, what reasoning do you give for supporting the position of one group over the other? Is it possible for both to be right? What ethical concepts help you decide? In my opinion I believe that the anti GM foods is correct in this argument because the effects of the GM foods has not been determined in humans yet. So it wrong for the pro GM group to say that the GM produced will cause no harm to humans.
The facts have not been established and should not have been distributed to the public. On another note I believe that engineering food will cause the price of crops to go down but at the same time this will cause harm to the farmers that rely on their crops to bring income in for them and in the long run will cause damage to America’s agricultural industry. 3) Is there any way to bridge the gap between these groups? If so, what would the advantages and disadvantages be? I believe that there is a way to bridge the gap between the two sides.
If the two sides decide to stop making accusations at each other and let the facts speak for themselves I believe that the bridge between the gaps will close. In my opinion pro GM should do long and extensive tests that proves the benefits of GM foods and provide them to the public and to the anti GM foods to help dispel any myths about the GM foods. The benefits would be that consumers will get to enjoy good tasting food that cost less and GM foods would be able to produce crops than anti GM producers.
The disadvantages would be that GM foods will cause the cost of anti GM foods to go down and this will cause them to farmers of anti GM food to go down making less income in the long run. 4) If you were crafting GMO public policy, what would you recommend? If I were crafting a GMO policy I would make all GM food have a mandatory test of at least 7 years to see if there any affects that come from a genetically manufactured foods, and I would make it mandatory that once the GMO foods are deemed safe they should be labeled as GMO foods so that public knows what they are eating.
Even though some companies will lose money from lack of business, I believe that all genetically modified crops should be labeled. Regardless of the positive or negative outcomes, I think we should have a right to know what’s in the food we are eating. Therefore we are responsible for the outcome of the modified crops and must make mandates that make the GM producers label their foods. So ultimately we leave up to the public if they want to eat GM products but at least they will know that it is a GM product with those labels. ) Do hybrid seeds represent as serious a concern as that represented by GM foods? What policy would you recommend for hybrid seeds and vegetables? In my opinion yes because it still has a big concern, the seeds/plants DNA was still messed with, hybrid is like GMO foods and is unnatural I would stay away from it, if possible. The best seeds to grow are heirloom seeds, which are all natural. Organic seeds are good also but you need to be careful because they can be GMO sometimes. I personally would grow heirloom, because heirloom is organic in eyes.