Ethics Of Using Genetically Engineered And Cloned Food

Ethics of Using Genetically Engineered and Cloned Food Name Institutional Affiliation Course Title Instructor Date: Ethics of Using Genetically Engineered and Cloned Food The introduction of genetically engineered and cloned food has attracted renewed interests from both the policy makers and researchers. The issue has created a controversy over the benefits and potential ethical concerns surrounding such food. As a consequence, the use of cloned and genetically modified food has attracted supporters and adversaries alike. On one hand, supporters of such food contented that it results in economic, social and environmental benefits while critics cite possible risks and ethical issues associated with the food on the other hand. Genetically engineered organisms are produced by removing at least a single gene from an organism’s DNA such as a plant, animal, virus or bacterium and recombining the gene(s) into a different organism (Maghari & Ardekani, 2011). With the help of the so-called recombinant DNA technology, scientists are able to alter organisms’ DNA to achieve the desired characteristics. Genetically engineered food, also called genetically modified food, refers to the food consisting of or derived from genetically modified organisms (Maghari & Ardekani, 2011). On the other hand, cloning is mainly aimed at producing genetically identical copies (clones) or a given organism. With the use of the so-called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), scientists are able to create clones of animals or plants and hence cloned food. SCNT encompasses fusing an egg cell from an animal and an enucleated donor cell from another animal using an electric pulse (Compassion in World Farming, n.d). This process results in the development of a cloned embryo which is then implanted into a dam (surrogate mother) through surgical procedure. Just like the use of genetically modified (GM) food, the use of cloned food has also raised some ethical concerns amid its benefits. This essay examines the ethics of utilizing cloned and GM food from the social, environmental and economic perspectives. Food is social, cultural as well as deeply personal and thus any modification to its production, distribution and consumption is likely to generate heated ethical debates. Indeed, the advent of GM and cloned food has created controversies. Ethics play a key role in weighing the ethical debates and controversies against the benefits of GM and cloned food. While science focuses on the safety of conducting genetic modifications and cloning of organisms, ethics tries to explain whether it is morally right to utilize such technology. It transcends factual statements regarding cloned GM food to assess statements regarding our actions and behaviors towards others, the environment and ourselves. Initially, the ethical debates regarding GM food were centered on the riskiness of recombinant DNA technology that allowed for the creation of GM food (Devos, Maeseele, Reheul, Speybroeck & De Waele, 2008). Currently, the debates have extended in terms of the scope of concerns addressed and actors involved. Virtue is one of the areas of that allows researchers to determine whether the use of GM and cloned food produces vices while eroding virtues. Specifically, virtue-based arguments for the use of GM food focus on its environmental, social and economic benefits. From the environmental perspective, some genetically engineered crops require minimal pesticide usage and thus reducing the negative impact of pesticides on the environment (Bhuiya, 2012). These crops are not only resistant to pests but also adverse weather conditions. By planting crops which are resistant to severe weather conditions and pests, farmers are able to obtain higher crop yields from a relatively less field space (Bhuiya, 2012). Most importantly, pest-resistant crops reduce pesticide-related deaths of farm workers, birds and aquatic organisms. Prior studies have documented the negative environmental effect of pesticide toxicity to humans and animals (Phipps & Park, 2002). The implication of this is that pesticide toxicity was rampant prior to the introduction of GM technology. Another environment benefit of GM food relates to reduced carbon footprint. Specifically, growing herbicide-tolerant GM crop is less harmful to human health and the environment relative to growing conventional plants, mainly because of reduced emissions from the manufacture and transportation of herbicides (Bhuiya, 2012). The production of herbicide-tolerant crops results in reduced emissions of greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to nitrification and acidification of water and soil, ozone depletion and global warming. Additionally, growing genccde3tically modified crops increases crop productivity which in turn helps in cleansing the environment by absorbing carbon (IV) oxide gas – a major cause of climate change and global warming. From an economic perspective, both GM and cloned food is associated with a number of economic benefits. For instance, GM crops leads to higher crop yield relative to conventional crops. Lamichhane (2014) assert that various countries that have adopted genetically engineered cotton (Bacillus thuringiensi) such as Australia, India, the United States, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa and India have reported increased crop yield. Moreover, decreased pesticide usage due to the growing of pesticide-resistant crop varieties leads to reduced expenditure on agriculture. Thus, farmers are able to reduce costs associated with the production of food crops by growing GM crops. Just like GM crops, cloned animals are characterized by increased disease resistance (Compassion in World Farming, n.d). Keeping disease-resistant livestock facilitates the famer to reduce costs associated with treating livestock diseases. Additionally cloned livestock also grow faster than conventional animals. This enhanced growth increases income generation from selling meat products. From the social standpoint, cloned and GM food is also beneficial to human health. Particularly, GM food has higher nutritional content than conventional crops (Key, Ma & Drake, 2008). Thus, the consumption of GM food contributes positively towards enhancing human health by eradicating various nutritional-deficiency diseases. In addition, scientists can produce GM livestock with higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids and lower amounts of saturated fats in order to tackle the problem of cardiovascular disease and obesity. In general, GM food plays a key role in the fight against malnourishment and undernourishment among children especially in the developing countries. It also enhances food security by increasing the quantity of food production and thus enhancing the availability of food at the local and global levels (Lamichhane, 2013). GM food also enhances food safety and quality while improvising the overall quality of living of farmers. Despite the many benefits of GM and cloned food discussed above, such food has also raised ethical concerns. Some of these ethical concerns are stem from genetically modified organisms’ moral status. For instance, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reported a high prevalence of pregnancy failure in surrogate dams – pigs and cattle carrying cloned embryos (Compassion in World Farming, n.d). Similarly, surrogate dams also surrogate dams often experience birth difficulties. The increased risks of birth difficulties coupled with the large sizes of cloned offspring results in more frequent use of Caesarian section among surrogate dams than conventional pregnancies (Compassion in World Farming, n.d). Such issues imply that cloning results in unnecessary animal suffering. In addition, cloning also has some adverse effects on the welfare and health of both animal clones and surrogate dams. It has been revealed that most of the cloned fetuses die at birth or during pregnancy. According to the report by Compassion in World Farming (n.d), the cloned pig embryos and cattle embryos that are born alive accounts approximately 6% and 6-15% respectively. These statistics imply that animal cloning is not a viable option as many of the fetuses end up dying during birth or pregnancy. Some of the health complications that contribute to high mortality rates of cloned fetuses include defective immune systems, respiratory difficulties and cardiovascular failure (Compassion in World Farming, n.d). Overall, critics of animal cloning often cite the health problems and suffering of animal clones and surrogate dams to question the ethical justification of the practice. Clones often serve as elite breeding livestock. In contrast, the clones’ offspring are farmed for the production of milk and meat. The underlying tenet behind animal cloning is that the technique will produce copies of fastest growing and highest yielding livestock for food. However, such assumption often ignores the problems resulting from the conventional genetic selection. Specifically, genetic selection of cattle for highest milk yield is a key risk factor for poor welfare in daily cows. Similarly, “genetic selection of pigs for rapid growth has resulted in cardiovascular malfunction and leg disorders” (Compassion in World Farming, n.d). Furthermore, critics have also raised concerns that the use of cloned offspring on farms could potentially entrench the utilization of livestock selected for acute production risks and traits and hence perpetuating the potential health problems relating to such traits. Just like cloned animals for food supply, genetically engineered animal...