The Political Import of Intrinsic Objections to Genetically Engineered Food

Article

Abstract

Many people object to genetically engineerehd (GE) food because they believe that it is unnatural or that its creation amounts to playing God. These objections are often referred to as intrinsic objections, and they have been widely criticized in the agricultural bioethics literature as being unsound, incompatible with modern science, religious, inchoate, and based on emotion instead of reason. Many of their critics also argue that even if these objections did have some merit as ethicalobjections, their quasi-religious nature means that they are entirely irrelevant when interpreted aspolitical objections regarding what public policy ought to be. In this paper, we argue that this widespread view is false. Intrinsic objections have much more political import than has previously been recognized, and indeed the requirements of political liberalism and its associated idea of liberal neutrality, once properly understood, protect intrinsic objections from many of the most common objections. That is, policy-makers may not legitimately base public policy on grounds that are inconsistent with intrinsic objections, even when they believe those objections to be flawed in the ways mentioned above. This means that in the context of a political debate about GE food, the discussion should not center on the substantive merits of the intrinsic objections themselves but rather on the appropriate political norms for achieving democratically legitimate policy on issues that touch people’s deepest religious and moral beliefs.

Keywords

ethics genetically engineered food genetically modified food GM food intrinsic objections liberal neutrality playing God political liberalism unnaturalness yuck factor 

Referemces

  1. Bennett, J. 1995The Act ItselfOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Brighouse, H. 2000Social Choice and Social JusticeOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. The Center for Food Safety, Compilation and Analysis of Public Opinion Polls on GE Foods, (September 30, 2003). Retrieved from http://centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/polls.html. Accessed on October 9, 2003Google Scholar
  4. Chan, J. 2000Legitimacy, Unanimity, and PerfectionismPhilosophy and Public Affairs29542Google Scholar
  5. Chrispeels, M. 2000Biotechnology and the PoorPlant Physiology12436PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. 1998

    Democracy and Liberty

    Elster, J. eds. Deliberative DemocracyCambridge University PressCambridge,UK185231
    Google Scholar
  7. Comstock G., A Brief for the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification of New Zealand, (2000a). Retrieved from http://www.biotech-info.net/NZ_brief.html. Accessed on December 11, 2004Google Scholar
  8. Comstock, G. 2000bVexing Nature? On the Ethical Case against Agricultural BiotechnologyKluwer Academic PublishersBostonGoogle Scholar
  9. Estlund, D. 1998The Insularity of the Reasonable: Why Political Liberalism Must Admit the TruthEthics108252275Google Scholar
  10. Goodpaster, K. 1978On Being Morally ConsiderableThe Journal of Philosophy75308325Google Scholar
  11. Gutmann, A., Thompson, P. 1996Democracy and DisagreementBelknap Press of Harvard University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Kass, L. 1998

    The Wisdom of Repugnance

    Kass, L.Wilson, J. eds. The Ethics of Human CloningThe American Enterprise Institute PressWashington, DC359
    Google Scholar
  13. Mill J. (1847). Nature. In: Mill J. S. (eds) Nature and Utility of Religion (The Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1958), 3–44. Originally published in J. S. Mill, Nature, The Utility of Religion, and Theism, Being Three Essays on Religion (London,1847).Google Scholar
  14. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Feeding the World: A Look at Biotechnology and World Hunger, (March 2004). Retrieved from http://pewagbiotech. org/resources/issuebriefs/feedtheworld.pdf. Accessed on December 10, 2004Google Scholar
  15. Program on International Policy Attitudes, Americans and the World: Public Opinion on International Affairs: Biotechnology, (2003). Retrieved from http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/biotechnology/bio_summary.cfm. Accessed on October 9, 2003Google Scholar
  16. Rawls, J. 1971A Theory of JusticeHarvard University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Rawls J., Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus, in D. Copp, J. Hampton, and J. Roemer (eds.), The Idea of Democracy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993). Originally published in New York University Law Review 62(2) (1989), 233–255Google Scholar
  18. Rawls, J. 1996Political LiberalismColumbia University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Rawls, J. 2001Justice as FairnessBelknap Press of Harvard University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Robert, J., Françoise, B. 2003Crossing Species BoundariesAmerican Journal of Bioethics3113Google Scholar
  21. Rollin, B. 1995The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of AnimalsCambridge University PressCambridge,UKGoogle Scholar
  22. Streiffer, R. 2003aMoral Relativism and Reasons for ActionRoutledgeNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Streiffer, R. 2003bIn Defense of the Moral Relevance of Species BoundariesAmerican Journal of Bioethics33738Google Scholar
  24. Streiffer, R., Rubel, A. 2004Democratic Principles and Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered FoodPublic Affairs Quarterly18223248Google Scholar
  25. Stroud, S. 1996Dworkin and Casey on AbortionPhilosophy and Public Affairs25140170PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Thompson, P. 1997Food Biotechnology in Ethical PerspectiveChapman and HallLondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Thompson, P., Food and Agricultural Biotechnology: Incorporating Ethical Considerations, (2000). Retrieved from http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agbiotech/Thompsonpaper/Canadathompson.html. Accessed on December 10, 2004Google Scholar
  28. Thomson, J. 1996The Realm of RightsHarvard University PressCambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  29. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, New Developments in Biotechnology-Background Paper: Public Perceptions of Biotechnology, OTA-BP-BA-45 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1987)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Department of Medical History and BioethicsUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations