Playing With Our Food

by Heedee on February 10, 2015 - 4:57pm

       Processed and genetically modified foods are being eaten by almost everyone, every day. Almost every food at your local store has been processed or is genetically modified to taste good, to look good and in fact to be sold at a cheaper price. GMOs are done by “extracting DNA from one species and injecting it into another” (Dr.OZ). While processed foods being quite similar are when you add chemicals to raw, natural foods so the process of making the product is faster and therefore able to produce great quantities of the product. Processed foods are also very convenient for the consumer since it’s cheaper and fast and easy to make.

      However, the point is that as much it benefits the consumers economically, especially the farmers it is morally unethical to poison our bodies with these chemicals.

      Following the teleological approach we should look at this situation in terms of the future since looking at long term consequence is what proves that it will bring greater good to more people if there weren’t GMOs and processed food (Merril 11). By looking at how GMOs and processed food can affect us we can understand that not eating these types of foods will bring the greater good amongst the people. People will be healthier, therefore live longer; the earth itself will be prone to less drastic environmental changes therefore prevent any greater harm. Also, by adding these chemicals onto our crops we are giving chances to insects, for example to adapt and sometimes mutate, therefore affecting our food chain.

      Although, it is realistic to say there are certain delicate situations to consider such as a family of 6 that has only one working parent. It’s true that there are families like this one that can’t afford to buy organic foods or always guarantee some freshly home cook meals; sometimes buying those $1.39 hamburgers at McDonald is what gets them through the day. However, if we were all to think about our problems that we had at this moment we would not realize the impact those decisions would make long term wise. Yes, the parents would probably be happy that they were able to feed their children but who would take care of those children when they start getting health related problems. Who would pay those bills? By trying to save money one way you’re paying double or even triple the amount to the health care system. Therefore, it’s more logical and morally right to do everything that will keep the people and the earth healthy and maintain its longevity.

      Furthermore, by avoiding eating processed and genetically modified food it will prevent people from eating at fast foods and therefore decrease the rate of humans who suffer from obesity in America. Above all that, there’s the unknown behind GMOs and that is that since human genetics is so complex it is hard to determine the long term effect (Murnaghan 2) therefore, the people are putting themselves in a situation that puts their health at risk.

      Thus, eating genetically and chemically modified food will not benefit the most people with regards to long term consequences and it is morally incorrect to put humans in a situation of risk since it prevents them from receiving the greater good.

 

Works Cited

Dr.Oz. Genetically Modified Foods: Get the Facts. The Dr.Oz Show. ShareCare, 17 Oct. 2012.

     Web. 08 Feb. 2015.

Merril, John C. “Overview: Theoretical Foundations for Media Ethics.” Media Ethics.

     Marianopolis College. 2015. Print.

Murnaghan, Ian. Unexpected Consequences of GM Foods. Genetically Modified Foods.

     N.p., 2 Sept. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2015

Comments

You imply that GMOs have negative effects on people. Where is your evidence? You quote Dr. Oz, a public personality with a terrible track record regarding factual information. See here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dont-believe-everything-you-see-on-dr-oz-res...

That aside, yes, we don't KNOW how GMOs will affect people in the long term, but what we do know is that people bordering on poverty can obtain food at lower prices due to the advancements of modern farming. Accounting on the fact that a LARGE number of people, especially in poorer countries, benefit from the accessibility of food, could it not be said that the mainstream use of GMOs is ethical?

You mention that GMOs are poisoning our bodies. Well, you can just face the price hike and go buy organic, since it does not follow the pesticide and GM practices of the mainstream industry. In reality, no one is forcing you to go eat GM food. While I don't really want to go into depth about studies regarding GMOs in a small comment, you'd have to consider that for every study that yields a potential of negative effects from GMO ingestion, you'll probably find one supporting it.

After looking at the post made by Ian Murnaghan (http://www.geneticallymodifiedfoods.co.uk/unexpected-consequences-gm-foo...), I even found out that it does not even cite ONE reference! How am I supposed to trust the theoretical ramblings of one person? Them having a BSc and MSc? It just doesn't stand up as a credible source.

Overall, I would think that while there MAY be a risk posed to the health of humans (clearly its not a big one considering the fact that we aren't dying left and right after introducing GM food into our diets), our foods being genetically modified would have an impact for the greater good of everyone on earth (see:utilitarianism). By that premise, I think we could conclude that the sale of GM food is ethical due to the slim chance of negative impacts and the benefit to a large amount of people.

Hello!
It's great to see such a detailed discussion of methodology! Trying to figure out how to collect and analyze information is an incredibly important task when analyzing these issues.

To me, however, the comment made by ProvocativeTrash, also raises questions about the style of argumentation. It reminds me of the debates we're having about vaccines, in that both sides are now so passionate that people are talking past one another. Are some styles of debate more productive than others? And how do we move forward, when people disagree so passionately?

Great conversation so far! I look forward to reading more.

I enjoyed the debate style of your writing. As it provides an insight into why genetically modified organism can be beneficial or could consist of a health hazard.

There are little risk associated with the consumption of GMO.GMO do not consist of a great danger to the health as when they are ingested they are broken down to essential nutrients needed for the normal functioning of the body. One of the main concern as illustrated by the World Health Organization (see source 1) is allergies, when genes from a certain species is introduced to another it creates the proteins from the species from which the genes came from resulting in allergies. However having said this I do not support GMOs as a reliable or sustainable food supply as alternatives do exist. GMO contribute to the growing problem of mono-culture and diversity loss of crop plants. Due to mono cultures our harvest are not more robust but rather extremely susceptible to diseases since are virtual clones of on another. Another issue that comes with GMO is the heavy use of pesticide and damage to the environment resulting from pesticide use. The monopoly of certain firms other patents concerning the genetic makeup of the crops and associated pesticides is also an ethical issue due to the lack of accessibility in less developed countries. Research published on Nature.com (see source 2) demonstrated that cross-breeding different varieties of the same species, could yield in plants that are drought resistance and produces higher yield than GMO and other conventional varieties. In general GMO should be avoided unless necessary.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically...

http://www.nature.com/news/cross-bred-crops-get-fit-faster-1.15940

I liked that you brought attention to the fact that there is a need for more research on Genetically Modified Organisms and that it is very difficult to be able to eat how and what we want. However, I would like to point out that there was a lack of a balanced approach to the issue. It could have been good to include some more positive aspects of GMOs. Also I am not sure I understand the connection you made between GMOs and obesity and your comparison of these with chemical products. Finally I do not think that Dr. Oz is a very credible source since he is a television personality that has faced harsh criticism before.

I believe that your text brings some good points about GMOs. But do they are really dangerous for our health and for our future? Even if scientists are not sure about the long term effects of GMOs on our body, those genetically modified products have been more helpful than harmful so far. In fact, GMOs allow us to feed a lot more people by making the crops stronger and able to resist to some insects. As hunger is an important problem in many parts of the world, I believe that GMOs are more like a solution than a problem.

I enjoyed your analysis of this issue, particularly because of the amount of coverage it has been getting in the media. I myself was very moved and concerned about the topic of GMOs after watching the film Food, Inc. Also, I appreciated the fact that you used a teleological framework to judge the ethical implications of feeding scientifically altered food to the masses.
However, I think it is important to draw a firm line between genetically modified foods and processed foods. On the one hand, and in keeping with a teleological approach, I believe that continuing to provide processed food, particularly junk food with little nutritional value, is morally questionable because corporations are making money off of people eating themselves to an early death. On the other hand, I do not think that there is a problem with GMOs because not only have we been living with them for a very long time, but also, they provide part of the answer to making impoverished areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa, food dependent, and provide a solution to the problem of feeding an ever-growing global population. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, using GMOs to efficiently feed billions, conforms to the Greatest Happiness Principle. If you would like to learn more about how these GMOs can help fight poverty and feed a growing population, I suggest checking out the yearlong series on food in National Geographic Magazine.

I enjoyed your analysis of this issue particularly because of the amount of coverage it has been getting in the media. I myself was very moved and concerned about the issue of GMOs after watching the film Food, Inc. Also, I appreciated the fact that you used a teleological framework to judge the ethical implications of feeding scientifically altered food to the masses.
However, I think it is important to draw a firm line between genetically modified foods and processed foods. On the one hand, and in keeping with a teleological approach, I believe that continuing to provide processed food, particularly junk food with little nutritional value, is morally questionable because corporations are making money off of people eating themselves to an early death. On the other hand, I do not think that there is a problem with GMOs because not only have we been living with them for a very long time, but also, they provide part of the answer to making impoverished areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa, food dependent, and provide a solution to the problem of feeding an ever-growing global population. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, using GMOs to efficiently feed billions, conforms to the Greatest Happiness Principle. If you would like to learn more about how these GMOs can help, I suggest checking out the yearlong series on food in National Geographic Magazine.

I enjoyed your analysis of this issue particularly because of the amount of coverage it has been getting in the media. I myself was very moved and concerned about the issue of GMOs after watching the film Food, Inc. Also, I appreciated the fact that you used a teleological framework to judge the ethical implications of feeding scientifically altered food to the masses.
However, I think it is important to draw a firm line between genetically modified foods and processed foods. On the one hand, and in keeping with a teleological approach, I believe that continuing to provide processed food, particularly junk food with little nutritional value, is morally questionable because corporations are making money off of people eating themselves to an early death. On the other hand, I do not think that there is a problem with GMOs because not only have we been living with them for a very long time, but also, they provide part of the answer to making impoverished areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa, food dependent, and provide a solution to the problem of feeding an ever-growing global population. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, using GMOs to efficiently feed billions, conforms to the Greatest Happiness Principle. If you would like to learn more about how these GMOs can help, I suggest checking out the yearlong series on food in National Geographic Magazine.

I enjoyed your analysis of this issue particularly because of the amount of coverage it has been getting in the media. I myself was very moved and concerned about the issue of GMOs after watching the film Food, Inc. Also, I appreciated the fact that you used a teleological framework to judge the ethical implications of feeding scientifically altered food to the masses.
However, I think it is important to draw a firm line between genetically modified foods and processed foods. On the one hand, and in keeping with a teleological approach, I believe that continuing to provide processed food, particularly junk food with little nutritional value, is morally questionable because corporations are making money off of people eating themselves to an early death. On the other hand, I do not think that there is a problem with GMOs because not only have we been living with them for a very long time, but also, they provide part of the answer to making impoverished areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa, food dependent, and provide a solution to the problem of feeding an ever-growing global population. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, using GMOs to efficiently feed billions, conforms to the Greatest Happiness Principle. If you would like to learn more about how these GMOs can help, I suggest checking out the yearlong series on food in National Geographic Magazine.

I enjoyed your analysis of this issue particularly because of the amount of coverage it has been getting in the media. I myself was very moved and concerned about the issue of GMOs after watching the film Food, Inc. Also, I appreciated the fact that you used a teleological framework to judge the ethical implications of feeding scientifically altered food to the masses.
However, I think it is important to draw a firm line between genetically modified foods and processed foods. On the one hand, and in keeping with a teleological approach, I believe that continuing to provide processed food, particularly junk food with little nutritional value, is morally questionable because corporations are making money off of people eating themselves to an early death. On the other hand, I do not think that there is a problem with GMOs because not only have we been living with them for a very long time, but also, they provide part of the answer to making impoverished areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa, food dependent, and provide a solution to the problem of feeding an ever-growing global population. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, using GMOs to efficiently feed billions, conforms to the Greatest Happiness Principle. If you would like to learn more about how these GMOs can help, I suggest checking out the yearlong series on food in National Geographic Magazine.