Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A case for a duty to feed the hungry: GM plants and the third world

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article is concerned with a discussion of the plausibility of the claim that GM technology has the potential to provide the hungry with sufficient food for subsistence. Following a brief outline of the potential applications of GM in this context, a history of the green revolution and its impact will be discussed in relation to the current developing world agriculture situation. Following a contemporary analysis of malnutrition, the claim that GM technology has the potential to provide the hungry with sufficient nourishment will be discussed within the domain of moral philosophy to determine whether there exists a moral obligation to pursue this end if and only if the technology proves to be relatively safe and effective. By using Peter Singer’s duty of moral rescue, I argue that we have a moral duty to assist the third world through the distribution of such GM plants. I conclude the paper by demonstrating that my argument can be supported by applying a version of the Precautionary Principle on the grounds that doing nothing might be worse for the current situation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is interesting to note that plants have traditionally been crossbred for centuries, effectively giving them very similar characteristics to transgenic plants developed using advanced biotechnologies. Some of the advantages of inserting desirable traits into plants in the laboratory include improved accuracy in inserting the desired gene(s) into the recipient’s genome, predicting with greater accuracy the result of the insertion and speeding up the transgenic processes. Chemical mutations, as well as the use of gamma rays and other non-GM breeding techniques ‘disturb’ the plant’s genome much the same way as GM. These methods are also highly unpredictable but they have not received much coverage in the media.

  2. Growth features include grain size or number and maturation speed; plant architecture includes height, branching and flowering; stress tolerance includes resistance to abiotic and biotic stressors such as drought, disease and herbicides and; nutrient content refers to the quality of starch, proteins, lipids and vitamins available in the plant.

  3. 2001 estimates of the impact insects had in the developing world concluded that 15% of the world’s pre-harvest food is lost to damage caused by insects. Further, more than 11 million hectares are cleared annually by third world farmers in search of more productive land. See Ref. [5].

  4. The first two major centres to be founded was the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines (IRRI) and the International Center for Wheat and Maize Improvement in Mexico (CIMMYT).

  5. Another trait plant characteristic developed during this period was the relocation of the seed cluster or the panicle, in rice and wheat. Traditional varieties send their cluster of seeds high into the air shading the highest leaves on the plant, the flag leaf, and preventing the plant from receiving maximum energy. Scientists bred the modern varieties to send the flag leaf high above the panicle to allow the plant access to the maximum amount of sunshine. See Ref. [7].

  6. It might be argued that the agrobiotechnology industry has successfully appeased public opposition to GM in some sectors by directing research in this direction. This might be true, but irrelevant to the truth of claims about the benefits of GM crops in the third world.

  7. The estimated number of people who are malnourished in countries in economic transition such as Latin America and the Caribbean is 34 million while developed countries contain approximately 10 million undernourished people.

  8. The global burden of disease attributable to undernutrition is staggering. Undernutrition in children aged under 5 years for example, has been estimated to cause 3.6 million deaths annually. Vitamin A deficiency for example, among children, is associated with an estimated 20% of measles mortality, 24% of diarrhoea mortality, 20% of malaria incidence and mortality and 3% of mortality associated with other infectious causes of disease. Iron deficiency (anaemia) contributes substantially to increased risk of mental disability, while zinc deficiency has been found to significantly compromise healthy immunological development in children. See Chapters 2–5 entitled Childhood and Maternal Undernutrition. In Comparative Quantification of Health Risks (Vol 1). M. Ezzati, A. Lopez, A. Rodgers and C. Murray, eds. WHO. Geneva: 2004.

  9. I use the terms, undernourishment and malnutrition synonymously.

  10. It must be noted that an increase in the production of food using genetic modification is not a panacea for world hunger—but it may help to alleviate it.

  11. For example, in Australia, the poor (incl. the homeless) suffer relative poverty since most have access to charitable organizations that provide clothing, food or emergency healthcare.

  12. Singer maintains that if the aid that is provided by individuals does not serve its purpose well, then our obligation no longer remains since the alleviation of hunger, suffering, etc. will not eventuate.

  13. An act that is morally praiseworthy when performed but not morally blameworthy when omitted.

  14. Neo-Malthusians maintain that the giving of aid to the poor is counter-productive and results in further over-population. This argument is often taken further by arguing that an increase in population leads to an increase in net suffering since provisions are scarcer still when the population increases. The conclusion is made that it would be wrong to give aid since in the long term it would only increase suffering.

  15. Singer does not elaborate on the means that might be employed to reduce population growth other than suggesting that dispensing contraceptives and conducting sterilizations may play a role in a broader strategy to create conditions in the third world under which people do not need to have so many children to feel secure in old age. The free dispensation of contraceptives, the provision of sex education and a creation of greater economic security are acceptable forms of population control. However, the idea that performing sterilizations might also feature as an acceptable form of population reduction, does not seem to fit comfortably within Singer’s original purpose. There is no further discussion in Singer’s postscript about this suggestion so comment is made difficult. Suffice to say that not providing aid because such drastic measures of population control are not undertaken, would be inconsistent and immoral.

  16. This of course is based on a number of assumptions outlined a little later—one of which is the requirement for an acceptable and in some sense measurable account of the relative safety and efficacy of distributing GM crops or the means by which to grow them.

  17. This is a simplification of a more complex situation. Arguably, there are many possible PPs of varying strength, and for simplicity I have depicted examples from opposite ends of a spectrum.

  18. Parallels should not be drawn between a weak version of the Precautionary Principle and a standard cost–benefit approach to environmental management. The weak version of the PP described here does apply a cost–benefit calculus to environmental uncertainties. The difference however, is that the PP approach contains within it, an implicit understanding that the environment possesses intrinsic value, that is, that living systems are valuable in themselves. Further, when we make decisions that could detrimentally or irreversibly affect the welfare of future generations, we should exercise caution. Also contained in a weak PP approach (that is not necessarily contained in a standard cost–benefit analysis), is a caution against accepting the view that the environment possesses an unlimited capacity to recover from damage inflicted upon it.

  19. By ‘doing nothing’ I mean a failure or omission to act either by placing prohibitions or restrictions on growing or distributing GM crops or a similar undertaking that has the same result.

  20. It might be iterated at this point that introducing GM plant technology is certainly not the only way of alleviating malnutrition. There are generally four widely recognised strategies for reducing malnutrition. These are; specifically targeted supplementation programs, food fortification, dietary diversification and disease reduction. Just as reliance on supplementation programs alone is not an effective means of eliminating malnutrition and poverty due to limited seasonal access to remote areas and sheer expense, so the planting of GM crops will not solely provide a solution to hunger. See Ref. [1]. Other ways of increasing food security might include improved infrastructure such as better roads, the creation of regional markets for exporting local crops, and providing small loans to farmers in order to allow them opportunity to establish small lots. See Wambugu. 2004. Modifying Africa: How Biotechnology Can Help the Poor and Hungry, A Case Study From Kenya.

  21. An anonymous reviewer has pointed out that many obstacles remain before real applications of genetic technologies are deemed not only technically sound, but also politically and economically acceptable. Because Peter Singer’s second constraint for the justifiable imposition of a duty of moral rescue in this context is highly dependent on efficacy, it may be some time before the real benefits of plant genetic technologies are realized. Assuming Singer’s notion of efficacy also implies the use of ethically sound management practices such as those based on democracy, equity and sustainability in the application of these technologies, many challenges remain. It may yet be the case that social, political and cultural issues are greater challenges for the introduction of GM plants than those posed by more technical obstacles.

  22. Recently, the media incorrectly reported that Zambia refused emergency food aid for exactly this reason. There are two points to be made here: evidence of safety was established in the literature some time before the offer of emergency food aid was made. Second, later investigations revealed the reason Zambia refused food aid from the United States was politically driven. The Zambian government at the time believed it was not in the country’s interest to misalign itself with Europe by accepting GM food since the European public and later, the European government, voiced strong objections to the distribution of any GM products. See Ref. [2]

  23. It must be noted here, that I am by no means assuming that the introduction or production of GM plant technology or GM crops will alone result in a decrease of mortality and morbidity rates in the third world. I am simply arguing that GM crops may assist in alleviating some hunger or some poverty or some environmental degradation and that this desirable.

  24. See The “Golden Rice” Hoax—When Public Relations Replaces Science by Vandana Shiva available from http://online.sfsu.edu/∼rone/Geessays/goldenricehoax.html accessed 12 October 2004. Vandana Shiva suggests one alternative to preventing VAD is biodiversity conservation and propagation of plants naturally rich in Vitamin A. Some common locally produced and consumed crops common to Indian diets, for example, are amaranth, curry and coriander leaves, vegetables such as spinach, pumpkin and tomato and fruits such as mango, oranges and jackfruit. Although this is a desirable solution in the long term, it is somewhat impractical in the current circumstances and may not prevent VAD in the short term primarily because available land and soil quality could not support such diverse crops without other intervention. However, just as GM plant technology is not a panacea for the world’s food problems, nor would the planting of traditionally grown crops in current environments provide a complete solution to VAD. A more sensible approach may be to combine these and other methods of farming in a bid to increase overall Vitamin A intake and prevent malnutrition.

References

  1. Bouis, B. (1996). Enrichment of food staples through plant breeding. Nutrition Reviews, 54(5), 131–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Christou, P., & Twyman, M. (2004) The potential of genetically enhanced plants to address food insecurity. Nutrition Research Reviews, 17, 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cullity, G. (1994) International aid and the scope of kindness. Ethics, 105, 99–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Davies, W. P. (2003). An historical perspective from the green revolution to the gene revolution. Nutrition Reviews, 61(6), s124–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Estrella, H. et al. (2001). Genetically modified crops—hope for developing countries. Embo Reports, 2, 256–258.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Evenson, R. E., & Gollin, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science, 300, 758–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Foster, P., & Leathers, H. D. (1999). The world food problem: Tackling the causes of undernutrition in the third world. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Goff, S. A., & Salmeron, J. M. (2004). Back to the future of cereals. Scientific American, 291(2), 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Millennium Project Task Force on Hunger (2004). Halving Hunger by 2015: A framework for action. Interim Report. New York.

  10. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2004). The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries: A follow-up discussion paper. London.

  11. Parker, J. (1998) Precautionary principle. In R. Chadwick (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied ethics (pp. 633–641). San Diego: Academic Press.

  12. Singer, P. (2002). Famine, affluence, and morality. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), Ethics in practice: An anthology (pp. 572–581). Oxford: Blackwell.

  13. Tripp, R. (2001). Twixt cup and lip—biotechnology and resource-poor farmers. Nature Biotechnology, 19, 93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics (2002) Top 10 biotechnologies for improving health in developing countries. Toronto: University of Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Professors Wayne Hall and William Grey for their contribution to earlier drafts of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucy Carter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carter, L. A case for a duty to feed the hungry: GM plants and the third world. SCI ENG ETHICS 13, 69–82 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y

Keywords

Navigation