Risk, Rationality and Liberalism

Abstract

Most scientific researchers, American governmental regulators, and principal business leaders maintain that there is very little risk and a myriad of benefits in genetically engineering food. They argue that biotechnological methods of splicing and transferring genes for the production of food could result in enhanced farming profits, less environmental contamination, and new agricultural products that are valued by consumers. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 68 percent of the soybeans, 69 percent of the cotton, and 26 percent of the corn harvested in 2001 were genetically altered (pew, 2003). However, notwithstanding its existence in the American food supply, convincing arguments by producers, and data offered by governmental agencies, agricultural biotechnology has its critics. While there is no scientific evidence that genetically engineered food is unsafe to eat, some people worry about the potential for unknown allergens, the increase in natural toxic substances, the decrease in nutritional value, and unintended environmental consequences (Burros, 1999b). Environmental concerns in particular have led to the illegal destruction of genetically engineered crops by protestors, the voluntary rejection of gene-altered ingredients by certain companies, and the discussion of reforming the regulatory approval process by governmental agencies (Barboza, 1999a).