Regarding the article by Layla Katiraee, I do agree with her stance that safety in all usage
of GMOs cannot be concretely stated. According to Katiraee, the absence of a paper giving
proof for GMO safety is used as a method to detract from the use of GMOs, but proof regarding
the safety of GMOs is relative to data showing what harms are caused by GMOs. There
currently are no specific studies linking physical harm with GMO consumption, so the sum of
studies and a body of data can highly suggest that current GMOs are safe relative to their
conventionally bred counterparts (Katiraee, 2015). The stance of GMOs being safe is done by
examining a body of data and developing a consensus there being no greater risk to health than
non-GMO counterparts (Katiraee, 2015). From the statements made by Katiraee, I do agree with
the modern stance that genetic modification of food does not cause harm.
My stance is shaped by the Utilitarian approach which considers ethical actions to be
ones that provide the greatest balance of good over evil (Murphee, n.d.). Primary benefits of
using genetically modified crops are that many small-scale low-income country farmers can
enjoy greater yields, lower costs, fewer illnesses, and higher income to these demographics
(“Straight talk on genetically engineered foods”, 2015). These benefits are offset by two major
negatives in GMO usage. The first negative is the possibility of increasing the number of
allergens in crops by genetically modifying them (“Straight talk on genetically engineered
foods”, 2015).
Allergies are typically caused by proteins, and since most GMOs produce new proteins,
these proteins can potentially create allergens (“Straight talk on genetically engineered foods”,
2015). However, the most serious food allergies are caused by handful of proteins from
primarily peanuts, milk or tree nuts, so the likelihood that any particular protein being an allergen
is very small (“Straight talk on genetically engineered foods”, 2015). The low likelihood of
creating an allergen may be the reason that the testing procedures used together only provide
with some confidence that the new protein will not be an allergen particularly if the new protein
is not of the handful of serious food allergens (“Straight talk on genetically engineered foods”,
2015). The second negative is the creation of weeds resistant to the herbicide that is primarily
used with GMOs. However, there are methods to delay herbicide-resistant weeds from being
developed including the rotation of crops that are grown in the same field to impact the weed
profile of the field and rotating the herbicides used on the GMO fields (“Straight talk on
genetically engineered foods”, 2015).
Works Cited
Katiraee, Layla. (2015). Why no one will ever “prove that GMOs are safe”. Biology Fortified.
https://biofortified.org/2015/05/prove-gmos-are-safe/
Murphee, Julie. (n.d.). A framework for ethical decision making. ASU.
https://asu.instructure.com/courses/129890/pages/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-
making-2?module_item_id=8930465
Straight Talk on genetically engineered foods: Answers to Frequently asked questions. (2015).
Center for Science in Public Interest.
https://www.cspinet.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/resource/biotech-faq.pdf
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
