Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Discourse on the Use of Genetically Modified Crops: A Review of Academic Publications in the Fields of Ecology and Environmental Ethics

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of genetically modified plants in agriculture (GM crops) is controversially discussed in academic publications. Important issues are whether the release of GM crops is beneficial or harmful for the environment and therefore acceptable, and whether the modification of plants is ethically permissible per se. This study provides a comprehensive overview of the moral reasoning on the use of GM crops expressed in academic publications from 1975 to 2008. Environmental ethical aspects in the publications were investigated. Overall, 113 articles from 15 ecology, environmental ethics, and multidisciplinary science journals were systematically reviewed. Three types of moral concerns were used to structure the normative statements, moral notions, and moral issues found in the articles: concerns addressing consequences of the use of GM crops, concerns addressing the act (the technique itself), and concerns addressing the virtues of an actor. Articles addressing consequences (84%) dealt with general ecological and risk concerns or discussed specific ecological issues about the use of GM crops. Articles addressing the act (57%) dealt with the value of naturalness, the value of biotic entities, and conceptual reductionism, whereas articles addressing the actor (43%) dealt with virtues related to the handling of risks and the application of GM crops. The results of this study may help to structure the academic debate and contribute to a better understanding of moral concerns that are associated with the key aspects of the ethical theories of consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A GM plant is an organism whose genetic characteristics have been modified by the insertion of an altered plant gene of the same species (intragenic modification) or a gene from other organisms (transgenic modification) using genetic engineering (Wartburg and Liew 1999).

  2. Besides the three mentioned normative ethical theories, other theories exist that are discussed in context of gene technology, e.g., contractualism. However, contractualism as an ethical theory of social contract could hardly be applied to the ethics of GM crops, because plants cannot be part of a social contract. Therefore, deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics were chosen as an underlying basis for our analysis.

  3. Biotic entities can be single organisms, species, ecosystems, or the biotic community.

  4. The journals were selected in 2007. At this time, the most recent impact factor was from 2006.

  5. JSTOR (Journal Storage) is an online system for archiving academic journals and provides a full-text search of digitized issues of several hundred journals. See Homepage jstor.org.

  6. Full list of all reviewed articles is available from author 1.

  7. Only ecological concerns underlying these concepts are relevant for our analysis.

  8. The “future benefits argument” (FBA) is an utilitarian ethical argument offered by proponents of agricultural biotechnology to justify continued research and development in gene technology.

  9. The term “biotic entities” refers to individual organisms as well as to species, ecosystems, or the biotic community.

  10. Balzer et al. (2000) discussed different meanings and understandings of dignity, including deontological meanings. However, they favoured a consequentialist meaning.

  11. Concerns about the human mastery over the non-human world are also topics within virtue concerns.

  12. We agree with Celia Deane-Drummond (2002) who states that the virtue of wisdom includes the virtues of prudence, temperance, precaution, and practical wisdom. Therefore, as long as these virtues were mentioned, they were considered as the virtue of wisdom.

  13. In German: “Wert des pflanzlichen Gedeihens.”

  14. Sustainable equivalence is a concept that states that GM food should be considered the same as conventional food if it shows the same characteristics and composition as the conventional food.

References

  • Altmann, M., & Ammann, K. (1992). Gentechnologie im gesellschaftlichen Spannungsfeld: Züchtung transgener Kulturpflanzen. GAIA, 1(4), 204–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin, L., Jahi, J., Nor, A. R., Osman, M., & Mahadi, N. M. (2007). Public acceptance of modern biotechnology. Asia Pacific Journal of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, 15(2), 39–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammann, K., Jacot, Y., & Braun, R. (Eds.). (2003). Methods for risk assessment of transgenic plants, IV. Biodiversity and biotechnology. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annas, J. (2006). Virtue ethics. In D. Copp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of ethical theory (pp. 515–536). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, D. (2002). Agriculture–reconciling ancient tensions. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2(2002), 52–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attfield, R. (2003). Environmental ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzer, P., Rippe, K. P., & Schaber, P. (1998). Menschenwürde vs. Würde der Kreatur. München: Alber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzer, P., Rippe, K. P., & Schaber, P. (2000). Two concepts of dignity for humans and non-human organisms in the context of genetic engineering. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 13(1), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beekman, V., & Brom, F. W. A. (2007). Ethical tools to support systematic public deliberations about the ethical aspects of agricultural biotechnologies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birnbacher, D. (2007). Analytische Einführung in die Ethik. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bleisch, B., & Huppenbauer, M. (2011). Ethische Entscheidungsfindung. Ein Handbuch für die Praxis. Zürich: Versus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böschen, S., Kastenhofer, K., Marschall, L., Rust, I., Soentgen, J., & Wehling, P. (2006). Scientific cultures of non-knowledge in the controversy over genetically modified organisms (GMO). GAIA, 15(4), 294–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, A., & Y.-S. Lo. (2008). Environmental ethics. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first published Mon Jun 3, 2002; substantive revision Thu Jan 3, 2008, plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/.

  • Brink, D. O. (2006). Some forms and limits of consequentialism. In D. Copp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of ethical theory (pp. 380–423). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2005). GM crops: the global economic and environmental impact—the first nine years 1996–2004. AgBioForum, 8(2&3), 187–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. L., & Ping, Y. (2003). Consumer perception of risk associated with eating genetically engineered soybeans is less in the presence of a perceived consumer benefit. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 103(2), 208–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, D. (2002a). A social contract for biotechnology: Shared visions for risky technologies? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(3), 279–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, D. (2002b). GM ethical decision making in practice. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2(2002), 75–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, D. (2003). Contamination, crop trials, and compatibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(6), 595–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, J. (2001). Agricultural biotechnology and the future benefits argument. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(2), 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, R. J., Knoepffler, N., Haniel, A., & Wenzel, G. (2002). Grüne Gentechnik. Ein Bewertungsmodell. München: Utz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, S. (2002). Ethical and value-based aspects of the European commission’s precautionary principle. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, S., & Levidow, L. (2000). Exploring the links between science, risk, uncertainty, and ethics in regulatory controversies about genetically modified crops. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(1), 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M.-F., & Li, H.-L. (2007). The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference, 18(4), 662–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, E. A., & Lehmann, H. (2001). Assessment of GM crops in commercial agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(1), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. N. (1977). Recombinant DNA: Fact and fiction. Science, 195(4279), 654–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comstock, G. (1989). Genetically engineered herbicide resistance, Part One. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2(4), 263–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comstock, G. (1990). Genetically engineered herbicide resistance, Part Two. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 3(2), 114–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, D. R., & Goreham, G. A. (2004). Are transgenic organisms unnatural? Ethics and The Environment, 9(1), 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowgill, S. E., Danks, C., & Atkinson, H. J. (2004). Multitrophic interactions involving genetically modified potatoes, nontarget aphids, natural enemies and hyperparasitoids. Molecular Ecology, 13(3), 639–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, R. (2003). Modern moral philosophy and the virtues. In R. Crisp (Ed.), How should one live? Essays on the Virtues (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deane-Drummond, C. E. (2002). Wisdom with justice. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2(2002), 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deane-Drummond, C. E. (2004). The ethics of nature. Malden: Blackwell Publication.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deblonde, M., & du Jardin, P. (2005). Deepening a precautionary European policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(4), 319–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deckers, J. (2005). Are scientists right and non-scientists wrong? Reflections on discussions of GM. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(5), 451–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devos, Y., Maeseele, P., Reheul, D., van Speybroeck, L., & de Waele, D. (2008). Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (re)quest for sense and sensibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21(1), 29–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, D. (1980). Patenting living organisms—how to beat the bug-rustlers. Nature, 283(5743), 128–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, A. (1995). Biocentrism and genetic engineering. Environmental Values, 3(4), 227–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dürnberger, C. (2008). Der Mythos der Ursprünglichkeit–Landwirtschaftliche Idylle und ihre Rolle in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung. Forum TTN, 2008(19), 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duvick, D. N. (1995). Biotechnology is compatible with sustainable agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 8(2), 112–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, E. T., & Cole, C. V. (1989). A perspective on agroecosystem science. Ecology, 6(70), 1597–1602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firbank, L. G., & Forcella, F. (2000). Genetically modified crops and farmland biodiversity. Science, 289(5484), 1481–1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg, E.-M. (2007). Value pluralism and coherentist justification of ethical advice. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(1), 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, V. (2001). What’s the moral of the GM food story? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(2), 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J. (2003). Societal issues and public attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 14(5–8), 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Hedderley, D., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997a). ‘Objection’ mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering. Agriculture and Human Values, 14(1), 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997b). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, Technology and Human Values, 22(1), 98–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L. J., Lassen, J., Kettlitz, B., Scholderer, J., Beekman, V., & Berdal, K. G. (2004). Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42(7), 1181–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganiere, P., Chern, W., & Hahn, D. (2006). A continuum of consumer attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31(1), 129–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G. (2000). Agricultural biotechnology and public attitudes in the European Union. AgBioForum, 3(2–3), 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., N. Allum, & S. Stares. (2003). Europeans and biotechnology in 2002—Eurobarometer 58.0 (2nd Edn. March 21st 2003). A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project ‘Life Sciences in European Society’ QLG7-CT-1999-00286.

  • Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., et al. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18(9), 935–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaus, G. F. (2001a). What is deontology? Part one: Orthodox views. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 35(1), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaus, G. F. (2001b). What is deontology? Part two: Reasons to act. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 35(2), 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goga, B. T. C., & Clementi, F. (2002). Safety assurance of foods: Risk management depends on good science but it is not a scientific activity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(3), 305–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, C. G. (2007). Genetically modified organisms and justice: The international environmental justice implications of biotechnology. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, 19(4), 583–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gura, T. (2001). The battlefields of Britain. Nature, 412(6849), 760–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hails, R. S. (2000). Genetically modified plants—the debate continues. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 15(1), 14–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hails, R. S. (2002). Assessing the risks associated with new agricultural practices. Nature, 418(6898), 685–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J., Holma, L., Frewer, L. J., Robinson, P., & Sandøe, P. (2003). Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 41(2), 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlander, S. K. (1991). Social, moral, and ethical issues in food biotechnology. Food Technology, 45(5), 152–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harwood, J. D., Wallin, W. G., & Obrycki, J. J. (2005). Uptake of Bt endotoxins by nontarget herbivores and higher order arthropod predators: Molecular evidence from a transgenic corn agroecosystem. Molecular Ecology, 14, 2815–2823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heaf, D., & J. Wirz. (Eds.) (2002). Genetic engineering and the intrinsic value and integrity of animals and plants. Proceedings of a Workshop at the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. Hafan: Ifgene.

  • Heeger, R. (2000). Genetic engineering and the dignity of creatures. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 13(1), 43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henson, S., Annou, M., Cranfield, J., & Ryks, J. (2008). Understanding consumer attitudes toward food technologies in Canada. Risk Analysis, 28(6), 1601–1617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herold, N. (2008). Pflicht ist Pflicht! Oder nicht? Eine Einführung in die Deontologische Ethik. In J. S. Ach, K. Bayertz, & L. Siep (Eds.), Grundkurs Ethik. Band 1: Grundlagen (pp. 71–90). Paderborn: Mentis Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, M.-W., Ryan, A., & Cummins, J. (1999). Cauliflower mosaic viral promoter—a recipe for disaster? Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, 11(4), 194–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, T. J., Woodrum, E., & Czaja, R. (1992). Public opposition to genetic engineering. Rural Sociology, 57(4), 476–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, C. A., & Carroll, C. R. (1995). Can we sustain the biological basis of agriculture? Annual Review of Ecology, Evolutionand Systematics, 26(1995), 69–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holtug, N. (2001). The harm principle and genetically modified food. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(2), 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. A., & Donnelly, K. C. (2004). A quantitative safety assessment model for transgenic protein products produced in agricultural crops. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17(6), 545–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hursthouse, R. (2003). Normative virtue ethics. In R. Crisp (Ed.), How should one live? Essays on the virtues (pp. 19–36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, K. K. (2006). Conflict over risks in food production: A challenge for democracy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(3), 269–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallhoff, A. (2002). Prinzipien der Pflanzenethik. Die Bewertung pflanzlichen Lebens in Biologie und Philosophie. New York: Frankfurt, Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karafyllis, N. C. (2003). Renewable resources and the idea of nature—what has biotechnology got to do with it? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(1), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasanmoentalib, S. (1996). Science and values in risk assessment: The case of deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 9(1), 42–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, E. (1993). Artefacts and functions: A note on the value of nature. Environmental Value, 2(3), 223–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, J., & Senauer, B. (1997). Food marketing in an electronic age: Implications for agriculture. Choices, 12(2nd Quarter), 32–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkham, G. (2006). ‘Playing god’ and ‘vexing nature’: A cultural perspective. Environmental Values, 15(2), 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korthals, M. (2001). Taking consumers seriously: Two concepts of consumer sovereignty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(2), 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotschi, J. (2008). Transgenic crops and their impact on biodiversity. GAIA., 17(1), 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, J. R., Bradbury, R. B., Wilson, J. D., & Siriwardena, G. M. (1999). The second silent spring? Nature, 400(6753), 611–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammerts van Bueren, E., & Struik, P. (2005). Integrity and rights of plants: ethical notions in organic plant breeding and propagation. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(5), 479–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, K. H., & Sandøe, P. (2001). Herbicide resistant sugar beet—What is the problem? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(2), 161–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, K. H., Holm, P. B., Lassen, J., & Sandøe, P. (2002). Ranking genetically modified plants according to familiarity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(3), 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, M. K., & Koivisto Hursti, U.-K. (2002). Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Appetite, 39(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marvier, M. (2002). Improving risk assessment for nontarget safety of transgenic crops. Ecological Applications, 12(4), 1119–1124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marvier, M., & Van Acker, R. C. (2005). Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash? Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 3(2), 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, S., & Stirling, A. (2002). Finding a precautionary approach to technological developments—lessons for the evaluation of GM crops. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(1), 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNaughton, D., & Rawling, P. (2006). Chapter 15. Deontology. In D. Copp (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of ethical theory (pp. 425–458). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijboom, F. L. B., Verweij, M. F., & Brom, F. W. A. (2003). You eat what you are: moral dimensions of diets tailored to one’s genes. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(6), 557–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melich, A. (2000). Modern biotechnology, quality of life, and consumers’ access to justice—eurobarometer 52.1 (Nov–Dec 1999). Conducted by INRA (Europe), Brussels. ICPSR02893-v4. Cologne, Germany: GESIS/Ann Arbor, MI. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors].

  • Melin, A. (2004). Genetic engineering and the moral status of non-human species. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17(6), 479–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mepham, B. (2008). Bioethics. An introduction for the biosciences (Second edition ed.). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munnichs, G. (2004). Whom to trust? Public concerns, late modern risks, and expert trustworthiness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17(2), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musschenga, A. (2005). Empirical ethics, context-sensitivity, and contextutalism. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 30(5), 467–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myhr, A. I., & Traavik, T. (2002). The precautionary principle: scientific uncertainty and omitted research in the context of GMO use and release. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(1), 73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myhr, A. I., & Traavik, T. (2003a). Genetically modified (GM) crops: Precautionary science and conflicts of interests. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(3), 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myhr, A. I., & Traavik, T. (2003b). Sustainable development and Norwegian genetic engineering regulations: Applications, impacts, and challenges. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(4), 317–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myskja, B. K. (2006). The moral difference between intragenic and transgenic modification of plants. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(3), 225–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, M. C., & Huge, M. (2007). Where do science debates come from? Understanding attention cycles and framing. In D. Brossard, J. Shanahan, & T. C. Nesbitt (Eds.), The media, the public and agricultural biotechnology (pp. 193–230). London: CABI Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, J., Holland, A., & Light, A. (2006). Environmental values (Routledge Introductions to Environment). New York: Routledge Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, D. (2002). Stretching the frontiers of precaution. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2(2002), 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascalev, A. (2003). You are what you eat: genetically modified foods, integrity, and society. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(6), 583–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paula, L., & Birrer, F. (2006). Including public perspectives in industrial biotechnology and the biobased economy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(3), 253–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, H. P., & Sawicka, M. (2007). German reactions to genetic engineering in food production. In D. Brossard, J. Shanahan, & T. C. Nesbitt (Eds.), The public, the media and agricultural biotechnology (pp.57–96). Wallingford (UK): CABI Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilson, D., & Prendeville, H. R. (2004). Ecological effects of transgenic crops and the escape of transgenes into wild populations. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35(1), 149–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouteau, S. (2000). Beyond substantial equivalence: Ethical equivalence. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 13(3–4), 271–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramjoué, C. (2007). The transatlantic rift in genetically modified food policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 20(5), 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regal, P. J. (1994). Scientific principles for ecologically based risk assessment of transgenic organisms. Molecular Ecology, 3(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reif, K., & A. Melich. (1996). Biotechnology and genetic engineering: What Europeans think about biotechnology—Eurobarometer 39.1 (First ICPSR Edition, April 1996). Conducted by INRA (Europe), Brussels. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI. Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer], Köln. Zentralarchiv für Empirische Sozialforschung/Ann Arbor, MI. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors].

  • Reiss, M. J., & Straughan, R. (2002). Improving nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rippe, K. P., & Schaber, P. (1998). Einleitung. In K. P. Rippe & P. Schaber (Eds.), Tugendethik (pp. 7–18). Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (1999). Ethics and transgenic crops: A review. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 2(2), 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, H., I. I. I. (1999). Genes, genesis and god. Values and their origins in natural and human history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runtenberg, C. (1997). Argumentationen im Kontext angewandter Ethik: das Beispiel Gentechnologie. In N. Herold & S. Mischer (Eds.), Philosophie: Studium, Text und Argument (pp. 179–193). Münster: LIT-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saba, A., Moles, A., & Frewer, L. J. (1998). Public concerns about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: a comparative study between the UK and Italy. Nutrition and Food Science, 98(1), 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R. (2004). An aretaic objection to agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17(3), 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R. (2007). Character and environment. A virtue-oriented approach to environmental ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R., & Cafaro, P. (2004). Environmental virtue ethics. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saner, M. A. (2000). Biotechnology, the limits of Norton’s convergence hypothesis, and implications for an inclusive concept of health. Ethics and the Environment, 5(2), 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savadori, L., Savio, S., Nicotra, E., Rumiati, R., Finucane, M., & Slovic, P. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1289–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, I. M. (2000). Green symbolism in the genetic modification debate. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 13(3–4), 293–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. (2003). Science and the consequences of mistrust: Lessons from recent GM controversies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(6), 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. (2005). The magic bullet criticism of agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(3), 259–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, H. P. (2001). Victor and victim. Nature, 412(6850), 861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serageldin, I. (1999). Biotechnology and food security in the 21st century. Science, 285(5426), 387–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, A. M., Zhao, J.-Z., & Roush, R. T. (2002). Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequences of the deployment of Bt transgenic plants. Annual Review of Entomology, 47(2002), 845–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M. (2008). Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 19(11), 603–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siipi, H. (2008). Dimensions of naturalness. Ethics and the Environment, 13(1), 71–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2008). Genetically modified food in the eyes of the public and experts. Risk Management, 10(3), 168–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skorupinski, B. (2002). Putting precaution to debate—about the precautionary principle and participatory technology assessment. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(1), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, A. (2003). Genetic engineering: Unnatural selection. Nature, 424(6949), 619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, C. N. (2004). Genetically modified planet. Environmental impacts of genetically engineered plants. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stöcklin, J. (2007). Die Pflanze. Moderne Konzepte der Biologie. Eidgenössische Ethikkommission für die Biotechnologie im Ausserhumanbereich EKAH (Eds.). Beiträge zur Ethik und Biotechnologie, Band 2.

  • Tanner, C., Medin, D. L., & Iliev, R. (2008). Influence of deontological versus consequentialist orientations on act choices and framing effects: When principles are more important than consequences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(5), 757–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. (1986). Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiedje, J. M., Colwell, R. K., Grossman, Y. L., Hodson, R. E., Lenski, R. E., Mack, R. N., et al. (1989). The planned introduction of genetically engineered organisms: Ecological considerations and recommendations. Ecology, 70(2), 298–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H. (1992). The concept of intrinsic value and transgenic animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 5(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H. (1997). Organic agriculture versus genetic engineering. In NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54(4), 387–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H., Matze, M., van Bueren, E. L., & Baars, T. (2003). The role of the concept of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(1), 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, S. (2003). The nature of artifacts. Environmental Ethics, 25(2), 149–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Kutschera, F. (1999). Grundlagen der Ethik. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Von Wartburg, W. P., & Liew, J. (1999). Gene technology and social acceptance. Lanham, Md: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wambugu, F. (1999). Why Africa needs agricultural biotech. Nature, 400(6739), 15–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkinson, A. R., Freckleton, R. P., Sutherland, W. J., & Robinson, R. A. (2000). Predictions of biodiversity response to genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Science, 289(5484), 1554–1557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, S. A., & Morris, M. C. (2005). Risks associated with genetic modification: an annotated bibliography of peer reviewed natural science publications. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(2), 157–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenz, P. S. (1999). Pragmatism in practice: The efficiency of sustainable agriculture. Environmental Ethics, 21(4), 391–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westra, L. (1998). Biotechnology and transgenics in agriculture and aquaculture: The perspective from ecosystem integrity. Environmental Values, 7(1), 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woese, C. R. (2004). A New biology for a new century. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 68(2), 173–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfenbarger, L. L., & Phifer, P. R. (2000). The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science, 290(5499), 2088–2093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the University Research Priority Programme Ethics (Universitärer Forschungsschwerpunkt Ethik) of the Ethics-Center, University of Zurich, for financial support, and Bernhard Schmid, Roger Busch, Marc Hall and Oliver Jütersonke for providing valuable comments on the original manuscript. We also like to thank the reviewers for helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057, Zurich, Switzerland

    Daniel Gregorowius & Petra Lindemann-Matthies

  2. Centre for Ethics, University of Zurich, Zollikerstrasse 117, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland

    Daniel Gregorowius & Markus Huppenbauer

Authors
  1. Daniel Gregorowius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Petra Lindemann-Matthies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Huppenbauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Gregorowius.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gregorowius, D., Lindemann-Matthies, P. & Huppenbauer, M. Ethical Discourse on the Use of Genetically Modified Crops: A Review of Academic Publications in the Fields of Ecology and Environmental Ethics. J Agric Environ Ethics 25, 265–293 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9330-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9330-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation