Reinterpreting Progress, Genetically Engineered Biofortified Crops and Technological Pragmatism

Part of the The International Library of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Ethics book series (LEAF, volume 28)


This chapter explores ideas for overcoming the three obstacles identified in the previous chapter. The chapter begins by focusing on fundamental issues in philosophy of technology, arguing that we need to reinterpret the philosophical idea of progress to move beyond the polarized debate over genetic engineering in agriculture. This requires abandoning conflicting metaphysical assumptions found in techno-optimism and techno-pessimism. I argue that environmental ethics needs a pragmatic philosophy of technology with a more limited interpretation of progress. The remainder of the chapter explores the implications of applying pragmatic technological philosophy to overcoming the three obstacles identified in the first chapter. More specifically, the chapter examines possibilities for using genetic engineering for social justice by reducing population-level micronutrient malnutrition with genetically engineered biofortified crops, with particular attention to the controversy over Golden Rice. The chapter ends by exploring the possibility of using a publicly funded, pay-for-performance incentive system to correct defects in the current incentive system, which is leading to market failures and injustices.


Biofortified Crops Pragmatic Engineering Golden Rice Project Micronutrient Malnutrition Current Incentive System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Banerjee, A., A. Hollis, and T. Pogge. 2010. The Health Impact Fund: Incentives for improving access to medicines. The Lancet 375: 166–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berman, J., C. Zhu, E. Pérez-Massot, G. Arjó, U. Zorrilla-López, G. Masip, R.J.M. Banakar, G. Sanahuja, G. Farré, B. Miralpeix, C. Bai, E. Vamvaka, M. Sabalza, R.M. Twyman, L. Bassié, T. Capell, and P. Christou. 2013. Can the world afford to ignore biotechnology solutions that address food insecurity? Plant Molecular Biology 83: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, W., J. Herman, and C. Michael. 2007. ‘Our biotech future’: An exchange. New York Review. Accessed 5 May 2016.
  4. Bishai, D., and R. Nalubola. 2002. The history of food fortification in the United States: Its relevance for current fortification efforts in developing countries. Economic Development and Cultural Change 51 (1): 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cochrane, W.W. 1958. Farm prices: Myth and reality. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cotter, J. 2013. Golden illusion: The broken promise of “golden rice.” Greenpeace International. Accessed 25 May 2016.
  7. De Steur, H., D. Blancquaert, S. Strobbe, W. Lambert, X. Gellynck, and D. Van Der Straeten. 2015. Status and market potential of transgenic biofortified crops. Nature Biotechnology 33: 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eisenstein, M. 2014. Biotechnology: Against the grain. Nature 514. Accessed 25 May 2016.
  9. European Commission. 2000. Commission adopts communication on precautionary principle. EUR-Lex. Accessed 24 May 2016.
  10. Glenna, L.L., and K. Jones. 2015. Genetically engineered crops and rural society. In Plant biotechnology: Experiences and future prospects, ed. A. Ricroch, S. Chopra, and S. Fleischer, 93–106. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Golden Rice Humanitarian Board. Golden rice project. Accessed 24 May 2016.
  12. Gostin, L.O., and M. Powers. 2006. What does social justice require for the public’s health? Public health ethics and policy imperatives. Health Affairs 25 (4): 1053–1060. Accessed 25 May 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenpeace International. 2016. Golden rice. Accessed 25 May 2016.
  14. Health Impact Fund. Accessed 25 May 2016.
  15. Ishii-Eiteman, M. 2011. ‘Golden rice’ or Trojan horse? Pesticide Action Network North America. Accessed 25 May 2016.
  16. Jasanoff, S. 2005. Let them eat cake’: GM foods and the democratic imagination. In Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement, ed. M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne, 183–198. London and New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  17. Johnston, J. 2008. Intellectual property and biomedicine. In From birth to death and bench to clinic: The Hastings Center bioethics briefing book for journalists, policymakers, and campaigns, ed. M. Crowley, 93–96. Garrison: The Hastings Center.Google Scholar
  18. Juarez, K. 2014. Biotech innovations that are changing the world. DIPnote, US State Department’s official blog. 30 May 2014. Accessed 19 January 2017.
  19. Krieger, N., and A.-E. Birn. 1998. A vision of social justice as the foundation for public health: Commemorating 150 years of the spirit of 1848. American Journal of Public Health 88 (11): 1603–1606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levins, R.A., and W.W. Cochrane. 1996. The treadmill revisited. Land Economics 72 (4): 550–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lynas, M. 2013. The true story about who destroyed a genetically modified rice crop. Slate. Accessed 20 January 2017.
  22. McGrath, M. 2013. GM ‘golden rice’ opponents wicked, says Owen Paterson. BBC News. Accessed 20 January 2017.
  23. Newell-McGloughlin, M. 2008. Nutritionally improved agricultural crops. Plant Physiology 147 (3): 939–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pandav, C.S., K. Yadav, R. Srivatsava, R. Pandav, and M.G. Karmarkar. 2013. Iodine deficiency disorders (IDD) control in India. The Indian Journal of Medical Research 138 (3): 418–433.Google Scholar
  25. Pogge, T. 2005. Human rights and global health: A research program. Metaphilosophy 36 (1/2): 182–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2009. Health Impact Fund and its justification by appeal to human rights. Journal of Social Philosophy 40 (4): 549–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ———. 2013. Unjustified regulation prevents use of GMO technology for public good. Trends in Biotechnology 31 (3): 131–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sarewitz, D. 2009. The idea of progress. In A companion to the philosophy of technology, ed. J. Olsen, S. Pedersen, and V. Hendricks, 303–307. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shiva, V. 2014. Golden rice: Myth, not miracle. Accessed 26 May 2014.
  30. Stein, A., H.P.S. Sachdev, and M. Qaim. 2006. Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of golden Rice. Nature Biotechnology 24: 1200–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Talsma, E.F., I.D. Brouwer, H. Verhoef, G.N. Mbera, A.M. Mwangi, A.Y. Demir, B. Maziya-Dixon, E. Boy, M.B. Zimmermann, and A. Melse-Boonstra. 2016. Biofortified yellow cassava and vitamin a status of Kenyan children: A randomized controlled trial. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 103 (1): 258–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thompson, P.B. 1997. Food biotechnology in ethical perspective. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  33. ———. 1998. Agricultural ethics: Research, teaching, and public policy. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2007. Food biotechnology in ethical perspective, 2nd ed, ed. J. Eckinger. Dordrecht: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 2009. Can agricultural biotechnology help the poor? The answer is yes, but with qualifications. Science Progress. Accessed 25 May 2016.
  36. United Nations General Assembly. 1948. The universal declaration of human rights. UN. Accessed 25 May 2016.
  37. van den Belt, H., and B.G. Gremmen. 2002. Between precautionary principle and “sound science”: Distributing the burdens of proof. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (1): 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wesseler, J., S. Kaplan, and D. Zilberman. 2014. The cost of delaying approval of golden rice. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review Update 3 (17): 1–3.Google Scholar
  39. World Health Organization. 2009 Global prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in populations at risk 1995–2005: WHO Global Database on Vitamin A Deficiency. Accessed 3 February 2017.
  40. ———. 2016a Metrics: Disability-adjusted life year (DALY). WHO. Accessed 25 May 2016.
  41. ———. 2016b Tuberculosis fact sheet 104. WHO. Accessed 25 May 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.W.A. Frank College of Forestry & ConservationThe University of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations