Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 583–594 | Cite as

You Are What You Eat: Genetically Modified Foods, Integrity, and Society

  • Assya Pascalev


Thus far, the moral debateconcerning genetically modified foods (GMF) hasfocused on extrinsic consequentialist questionsabout the health effects, environmental impacts,and economic benefits of such foods. Thisextrinsic approach to the morality of GMF isdependent on unsubstantiated empirical claimsand fails to account for the intrinsic moralvalue of food and food choice and theirconnection to the agent's concept of the goodlife. I develop a set of objections to GMFgrounded in the concept of integrity andmaintain that food and food choice can beintimately connected to the agent's personalintegrity. I argue that due to the constitutionof GMF and the manner in which they areproduced, such foods are incompatible with thefundamental values and integrity of certainindividual moral agents or groups. I identifythree types of integrity that are threatened byGMF: religious, consumer, and integrity basedon certain other moral or metaphysical grounds.I maintain that these types of integrity aresufficiently important to provide justificationfor political and societal actions to protectthe interests of those affected. I conclude byproposing specific steps for handling GMFconsistent with the moral principles ofinformed consent, non-maleficence, and respectfor the integrity of all members of society.They include mandatory labeling of GMF, theimplementation of a system for control andregulations concerning such foods, andguaranteed provision of conventional foods.

authenticity food choice genetically modified foods integrity society ways of life 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Batalion, N., “50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods,” 50harm.htm (2000) (accessed on 26 June, 2003).Google Scholar
  2. Becker, E., “U.S. Threatens to Act Against Europeans Over Modified Foods,” New York Times, January 10, 2003, p. 4.Google Scholar
  3. Benthon, N., “Rat Gene Increases Vitamin C in Plants,” Science From Virginia Tech (2003), Scholar
  4. Bovenkerk, B., F. W. A. Brom, and B. J. van den Bergh, “Brave New Birds: The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics,” Hastings Center Report 32(1) (2002), 16–22.Google Scholar
  5. Burkhart, J., Taking Ethics Seriously (unpublished manuscript, University of Florida).Google Scholar
  6. Brown, K., “Seeds of Concern,” Scientific American (April 2001), 51–57.Google Scholar
  7. Comstock, G., “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods,” SCOPE GM Food Controversy Forum 2 (2001).Google Scholar
  8. Cox, D., M. La Caze, and M. Levine, “Integrity,” in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2001), es/sum2001/entries/ integrity/ (accessed on 26 June, 2003).Google Scholar
  9. Council of Europe, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, 164.htm (2001).Google Scholar
  10. Dickman, M. B., Y. K. Park, T. Oltersdorf, W. Li, T. Clemente, and R. French, –Abrogationof Disease Development in Plants Expressing Animal Antiapoptotic Genes,—MEDLINE (2001), (accessed on 26 June,2003).Google Scholar
  11. Hart, K., Eating in the Dark (Pantheon Books, New York, 2002).Google Scholar
  12. Homiak, M., “Moral Character,” in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003), on 26 June, 2003).Google Scholar
  13. Hopkins, K., “The Risks on the Table,” Scientific American (April 2001), 61.Google Scholar
  14. Horsch, R., “Interview with Sasha Nemecek, ‘Does the World Need GMF? Yes!’,” Scientific American (April 2001), 62–63.Google Scholar
  15. McFall, L., “Integrity,” Ethics 98 (1987), 5–20.Google Scholar
  16. Mellon, M., “Interview with Sasha Nemecek, ‘Does the World Need GM Foods?’,” Scientific American (April 2001), 64–65.Google Scholar
  17. Thomson, P., “Food Biotechnology Challenge to Cultural Integrity and Individual Consent,” Hastings Center Report 27(4) (1997), 35–38.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Assya Pascalev
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of North FloridaJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations