Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

GM Food and Nanotechnology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
In Pursuit of Nanoethics

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 10))

Abstract

In matters characterized by a high degree of complexity or uncertainty, such as the social and ethical dimensions of an emerging technology, it is often useful to begin with historical analogies (Steinbruner 2002). In the case of nanotechnology, one of the favored analogs is genetically modified (GM) foods. Even a cursory read of the first generation of social and ethical issues (SEI) literature on nanotechnology reveals that the GM food analogy plays prominently in motivating and framing the discourse, if not the agenda of SEI research. This chapter offers critical reflections on the comparisons between nanotechnology and GM foods. The aim is to identify the respects in which the comparisons are helpful in clarifying and responding to the SEI associated with emerging nanotechnologies, as well as the respects in which the comparisons are unhelpful or misleading. After reviewing several similarities and dissimilarities between the two types of technologies, three potential lessons from the GM food experience for emerging nanotechnologies are evaluated: a lesson on public engagement; a lesson on technological fixes; and a lesson on case by case assessment.

Portions of this chapter originally appeared in Sandler and Kay (2006) and Sandler (2007a, b, 2009).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The analogy appears in scholarly articles, congressional testimonies, popular articles, public lectures, opinion pieces, and government publications. For example: Colvin (2003, April 9), Mnyusiwalla et al. (2003), Woodhouse (2004), Wilsdon (2004), Gorman et al. (2004), Moore (2002), The Royal Society (2004), Mehta (2004), Kulinowski (2004), Sweeney et al. (2003), Geoff Brumfiel (2003, July 17), Giles (2003, December 18/25), Wilsdon and Willis (2004), President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2005), National Research Council (2002), Thompson (n. d.), Marchant (2007), Burube (2006).

  2. 2.

    This point is emphasized by Moore (2002), who highlights the following: affluences levels sufficient to allow discriminating decisions about new technologies; the pervasiveness of technologies; the high rate of technological change; widespread acceptance of the importance of individual choice; public demandingness for greater accountability and evidence on unintended and unwanted consequences of new technologies; and the rapid pace at which SEI discussion can proceed and opposition form. Also relevant is reduced (and trending downward) levels of public trust in industry and government.

  3. 3.

    Prominent among these are Greenpeace and the ETC Group, formerly Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI), which has advocated shutting down research and development of molecular manufacturing and a moratorium on the commercial production of new nanomaterials (ETC Group 2003).

  4. 4.

    This is not to deny either that many food related technologies are widely accepted without any public scrutiny or that when there is public scrutiny a majority of consumers are not among those concerned (Thompson n. d.). The claims above are comparative and qualified. Food related technologies are more exposed to public opposition for the reasons given than technologies in fields that are already conceptualized by the public as technologically dominated and artificial; and among those who are concerned about food related technologies their concerns often are grounded in the role that food plays in human life/affairs, conceptions/expectations regarding naturalness, and so on.

  5. 5.

    “[E]arly and open discussions of the societal and ethical impacts of new technologies improve their staying power, save taxpayers money, and benefit our society” (Colvin 2003, April 9).

  6. 6.

    Here are a couple representative statements of this lesson:

    We believe that there is a danger of derailing NT if serious study of NT’s ethical, environmental, economic, legal, and social implications…does not reach the speed of progress in the sciences…The only way to avoid such a moratorium [on nanotechnology] is to immediately close the gap between the science and ethics of NT. The lessons of genomics and biotechnology make this feasible. Either the ethics of NT will catch up, or the science will slow down (Mnyusiwalla et al. 2003, pp. R9, R12).

    No nanotechnologist wants the field to go the way of GM foods, which are largely viewed as the poster child for misguided public policy. With sound technical data about nanomaterials’ health and environmental impacts and a commitment to open dialogue about potential social and ethical implications with all stakeholders, nanotechnology could avoid traveling along the wow-to-yuk trajectory (Kulinowski 2004, p. 19).

  7. 7.

    It is possible that opposition to GM foods carries over to nanotechnology through social and psychological inertia. The point here is not to deny this possibility, but to show that it is significantly less likely than has standardly been supposed.

  8. 8.

    In addition, it is not clear that increased knowledge or awareness of nanotechnology is associated with increases acceptance or support of it (Kahan et al. 2007).

  9. 9.

    Exceptions include Hillie and Hlophe (2007), Salamanca-Buentello et al. 2005, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (2007), and Invernizzi and Foladori (2005).

  10. 10.

    Ongoing efforts and possible pathways to overcome some of these barriers for nanotechnology are described in Rodrigues et al. (2007).

  11. 11.

    Other GM crops being developed or in the field that might be acceptable upon evaluation, depending upon how they are situated within broader approaches to resolving the relevant agricultural challenges, include rice with the capacity to fix nitrogen, cassava (a staple food in much of Africa) with resistance to the cassava mosaic virus, corn with resistance to the stem borer (which takes about 15 % of Kenya’s corn crop each year), crops with high salinity tolerance, and potatoes, canola, bananas, sorghum, and cassava with nutritional (e.g., protein, vitamin, or mineral) enhancement.

References

  • Brumfiel, G. 2003, July 17. A little knowledge…. Nature 424: 246–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burube, D. 2006. Nano-Hype: The truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. 1999. Design for nature writing. In Lost woods: The discovered writings of Rachel Carson, ed. L. Lear, 93–97. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, M., and J. Macoubrie. 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6: 395–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colvin, V. 2003, April 9. Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science. Retrieved March 8, 2005 from http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/colvin.htm.

  • Comstock, G. 2000. Vexing nature? On the ethical case against agricultural biotechnology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crichton, M. 2002. Prey. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Chiro, G. 2007. Indigenous peoples and biocolonialism: Defining the ‘Science of Environmental Justice’ in the century of the gene. In Environmental justice and environmentalism: The social justice challenge to the environmental movement, ed. R. Sandler and P. Pezzullo, 251–283. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group. 2003. The Big Down: Atomtech: Technologies converging at the nanoscale. Retrieved March 8, 2005 from http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf.

  • Giles, J. 2003, December 18/25. What is there to fear in something so small? Nature 426: 750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden Rice Humanitarian Project. 2007. Golden Rice: Access to the technology. Retrieved November 7, 2007 from http://www.goldenrice.org/Content2-How/how9_IP.html.

  • Gorman, M.E., J.F. Groves, and R.K. Catalano. 2004. Societal dimensions of nanotechnology. Technology in Society 23: 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillie, T., and M. Hlophe. 2007. Nanotechnology and the challenge of clean water. Nature Nanotechnology 2: 663–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Invernizzi, N., and G. Foladori. 2005. Nanotechnology and the developing world: Will nanotechnology overcome poverty or widen disparities. Nanotechnology Law and Business Journal 2(3): 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joy, B. 2000, April. Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired Magazine. Retrieved March 8, 2005, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html.

  • Kahan, D., P. Slovic, D. Braman, J. Gastil, and G. Cohen. 2007. Nanotechnology risk perceptions: The influence of affect and values. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, E. 2000. The big lie. In Environmental restoration, ed. W. Throop, 83–93. Amherst: Humanity Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulinowski, K. 2004. Nanotechnology: From ‘Wow’ to ‘Yuck’. Bulletin of Science Technology Society 24: 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma, J., and P. VerHage. 2006. Nanotechnology in agriculture and food production: Expected applications. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant, G. 2007, September 10. Emerging technologies and the environment. Presentation at the challenges and opportunities: The future of nano and bio technologies conference at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. Retrieved November 7, 2007 from http://www.crnano.org/Marchant.pps#257.

  • McKibben, B. 1999. The end of nature, 2nd ed. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKibben, B. 2003. Enough: Staying human in an engineered age. New York: Times Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, M.D. 2004. From biotechnology to nanotechnology: What can we learn from earlier technologies. Bulletin of Science Technology Society 24: 34–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Micronutrient Initiative and United Nations Children’s Fund. 2004. Vitamin and mineral deficiency: A global progress report. Ottawa/New York: Micronutrient Initiative and United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: General synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnyusiwalla, A., A.S. Daar, and P.A. Singer. 2003. ‘Mind the Gap’: Science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14: R9–R13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. 2002, November 19. Lessons from the GMO and Frankenfood Debate: Building public trust in new technology and science. Presentation at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Retrieved March 8, 2005 from http://www.environmentalfutures.org/nanotech.htm.

  • National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. 2005. The national nanotechnology initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Nanotechnology Initiative. 2007. What is nanotechnology? Retrieved August 11, 2007 from http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/home_facts.html.

  • National Research Council. 2002. Small wonders, endless frontiers: A review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • One Laptop Per Child. 2007. Progress. Retrieved November 7, 2007 from http://laptop.org/vision/progress/.

  • Paine, J., C. Shipton, S. Chaggar, R. Howells, M. Kennedy, G. Vernon, S. Wright, E. Hinchliffe, J. Adams, A. Silverstone, and R. Drake. 2005. Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology 23: 482–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter D. Hart Research Associates. 2007. Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumwood, V. 2002. Environmental culture and the ecological crisis of reason. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. 2005. The national nanotechnology initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. 2007. Developing story: Nanotechnology and low-income nations. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raffensperger, C. 2002. Learning to speak ethics in technological debates. In Engineering the farm: Ethical and social aspects of agricultural biotechnology, ed. B. Bailey and M. Lappe, 125–133. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman, J., L.S. Watrud, E.H. Lee, C.A. Burdick, M.A. Bollman, M.J. Storm, G. King, and C. Mallory-Smith. 2006. Establishment of transgenic herbicide-resistant creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) in non-agronomic habitats. Molecular Ecology 15: 4243–4255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, J. 1983. Algeny: A new word, a new world. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C. 2003. Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 5: 181–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, R., T. Lodwick, R. Sandler, and W.D. Kay. 2007. Nanotechnology and the Global Poor: United States Policy and International Collaborations. In Technical proceedings of the 2007 Nanotechnology conference and trades show, vol. 1, 593–596. Nano Science and Technology Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamanca-Buentello, F., D.L. Persad, E.B. Court, D.K. Martin, A.S. Daar, and P. Singer. 2005. Nanotechnology and the developing world. PLoS Medicine 2(5): e97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, E.M. 2004. The expert’s role in nanoscience and technology. In Discovering the nanoscale, ed. D. Baird, A. Nordmann, and J. Schummer, 257–266. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R. 2007a. Nanotechnology and social context. Bulletin of Science Technology Society 27(6): 446–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R. 2009. Nanotechnology: The social and ethical issues. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R., and C. Bosso. 2007. Tiny technology, enormous implications. Issues in Science and Technology 23(4): 28–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R., and W.D. Kay. 2006. The GMO-nanotech (dis)analogy? Bulletin of Science Technology Society 26: 57–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, D., and B. Lewenstein. 2005. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7(6): 659–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. 1997. Biopiracy: The plunder of nature and knowledge. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. 1999. Stolen harvest. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, A., H.P.S. Sachdev, and M. Qaim. 2006. Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of Golden Rice. Nature Biotechnology 24: 1200–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, A., H.P.S. Sachdev, and M. Qaim. 2007. What we know and don’t know about Golden Rice. Nature Biotechnology 25: 624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinbruner, J.D. 2002. The cybernetic theory of decision: New dimensions of political analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, A.E., S. Seal, and P. Vaidyanathan. 2003. The promises and perils of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Exploring emerging social and ethical issues. Bulletin of Science Technology Society 23: 236–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. 2007. Food biotechnology in ethical perspective. Dordrecht: Springer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, P. n. d. Nano and bio: How are they alike? How are they different?’

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. 2007. The millennium development goals report. New York: United Nations. Retrieved November 7, 2007 from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/mdg2007.pdf.

  • United Nations Children’s Fund. 1998. The state of the world’s children 1998. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Children’s Fund. 2006. The state of the world’s children 2006: Excluded and invisible. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environment Programme. 2007. Global environmental outlook 4. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watrud, L.S., E.H. Lee, A. Fairbrother, C. Burdick, J.R. Reichman, M. Bollman, M. Storm, G. King, and P. Van de Water. 2004. Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101(40): 14533–14538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J. 2004. The politics of small things: Nanotechnology, risk and uncertainty. Technology in Society 23: 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, E.J. 2004. Nanotech controversies. Technology in Society 23: 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. 2006. Vitamin A. Retrieved August 20, 2006 from http://www.who.int/vaccines-iseases/en/vitamina/science/sci02.shtml.

  • Ye, X., S. Al-Babili, A. Kloti, J. Zhang, P. Lucca, P. Beyer, and I. Potrykus. 2000. Engineering the provitamin A (Beta-Carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (Carotenoid-Free) rice endosperm. Science 287: 303–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Religion, Northeastern University, Holmes Hall, 371, 02115, Boston, MA, USA

    Ronald Sandler

Authors
  1. Ronald Sandler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald Sandler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland

    Bert Gordijn

  2. University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom

    Anthony Mark Cutter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sandler, R. (2014). GM Food and Nanotechnology. In: Gordijn, B., Cutter, A. (eds) In Pursuit of Nanoethics. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6817-1_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation