Volume 5, Number 3
By Kristen Hessler, ISU Bioethics Outreach Coordinator
Statistics show that you probably eat food made from genetically modified (GM) crops on a regular basis without even knowing it. No labels are required for GM foods, and that fact is at the center of a high-profile bioethics debate.
Advocates of mandatory labeling for GM foods claim that consumers have a “right to know” or a “right to informed choice,” which mandates labeling of GM foods. This is the approach of Jean Halloran and Michael Hansen of Consumers International:
“Food is different from other consumer products. It’s something we literally take inside ourselves, it’s necessary on a daily basis for growth and life, and bound up in our cultures and traditions, so we care about it intensely. Consumers, therefore, have a fundamental right to know what they are eating, and that it is safe.”
The claim that we have a right to know what we’re eating, and that it is safe, sounds entirely reasonable. Does it imply that we also have a right to have GM foods labeled?
As a general rule, a complete account of a right must indicate not only who holds the right (in this case, consumers), but also who is obligated by the right to do what. For example, my right to life may imply that you have a duty to refrain from killing me, but not that you have a duty to donate your heart to me if I develop a fatal heart disease. What obligations does the consumers’ right to know about GM food ingredients entail, and whose responsibility is it to bear these obligations?
Some opponents of mandatory labeling argue against the idea that consumers have a blanket right to know about the contents of their food, suggesting instead that consumers have only a limited right to know about their food. For example, while the FDA permits very small amounts of unsavory pest remnants in food, it is not necessary to list these “ingredients” on food packaging. Another objection is that mandatory labeling would not actually inform consumers in any meaningful way. This is because playing it safe under a mandatory labeling regime might mean labeling processed food as containing GM ingredients without ascertaining whether they actually do. This would save money on segregation costs while avoiding penalties for failing to label GM foods as such. Moreover, if tolerances are established for trace GM content in foods that can still qualify for a GM-free label, then people who wish strictly to avoid all GM foods will not be able to use the GM-free label as a reliable guide.
A frequently touted alternative to mandatory labeling is voluntary labeling for GM-free foods. In a voluntary labeling system, consumers could choose GM-free foods, assuming that they are willing to pay the premium required to cover the costs of segregating and labeling the GM-free food. Voluntary labeling proponents point out that such a system will still enable consumers to choose GM-free foods, and so would protect the value of informed consumer choice that motivates calls for mandatory labeling.
This kind of proposal brings out a centrally important aspect of the labeling debate. Whether a voluntary or mandatory labeling scheme makes more sense depends in large part on one’s opinions about the legitimacy of consumer concerns about GM food. Proponents of voluntary labeling see GM foods as perfectly safe for the consumer. In that light, the consumer preference for GM-free foods is, from an ethical perspective, no weightier than a consumer preference for fine wine, for which it is perfectly acceptable to expect consumers to pay more.
Many consumers, however, are not convinced that GM food is entirely safe. They may wish to avoid GM foods for a variety of reasons, including environmental concerns, religious objections to genetic engineering in general, economic objections to increased use of biotechnology in agriculture, or aesthetic preferences. Such people are likely to feel that they are entitled to know whether particular foods contain GM material, and that they should not have to pay more for their food or shop in specialty stores in order to get this information.
Do these concerns justify mandatory labeling of GM foods? While it would be neither possible nor desirable to justify labeling regulations based on any and every whim of consumers, it is in the interests of all parties to develop a policy that satisfies consumers’ desires for information and addresses their concerns. The status quo does not seem to fit the bill.
by Dave Gieseke, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Bioethics programs dot the landscape at colleges and universities throughout
the country.
Most, however, focus exclusively on medical ethics and entirely neglect environmental
and agricultural issues. Few bioethics programs concentrate their efforts on
agriculture or environmental issues.
That, says Clark Wolf, is what attracted him to Iowa State and the bioethics program within the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies.
“This is a very unique program,” says the newly hired director of the program and associate professor of philosophy and religious studies. “Iowa State has a historical strength in agriculture and biotechnology and the Iowa State bioethics program has been a powerful influence because it has focused attention on ethical issues in agriculture, environmental protection and biotechnology.”
For Wolf, that made his move from the University of Georgia to Iowa State a natural one. “Clearly this program fits my interests better than any other bioethics program in the country,” he said.
Wolf’s own research interests in bioethics lies at the intersection of
ethical theory, political philosophy and the philosophy of law.
“I am most interested in those issues in bioethics that touch on concrete
tools of policy and decision analysis, and which bring to bear current work
in ethical theory and political philosophy,” he says.
“Good bioethics must first be good philosophy, so bioethicists must be engaged with current work in ethical theory. Responsible work in philosophy and public policy must similarly be connected with the best work in political and legal philosophy, and must incorporate and articulate understanding of the best theories of policy analysis.”
The Iowa State program is one, which over the past 15 years has gained an international reputation for integrating ethics across the life science curriculum. Wolf says most of the credit for that goes to Gary Comstock, the man he is replacing, who is now directing a similar program at North Carolina State University.
“Gary did something very wonderful and unique with the Iowa State bioethics program,” Wolf said. “I hope to continue the historical mission of the program, which has expanded the presence of bioethics teaching in courses across the curriculum. But I also hope that the Iowa State bioethics program can become a resource for policy makers and for the public, by bringing attention to environmental and ethical issues and by raising the level of education and debate about environmental and agricultural policy.”
Wolf hopes to continue Iowa State’s outstanding bioethics tradition that Comstock started. He also plans to continue offering a campus-wide bioethics faculty conference and the University’s popular Bioethics Institute.
Those institutes have trained life science faculty members at Iowa State and at institutions throughout the world how ethical issues can be introduced into the classroom. The expansion of bioethics into the life science curriculum at Iowa State and the creation of a colloquium series on bioethics topics are other goals of Wolf.
“I hope to identify ways that Iowa State’s curriculum can productively be expanded to include even more bioethics issues,” he said. “I also plan to work to expand faculty representation in bioethics, and not just in this department (philosophy and religious studies).
“This is a field that requires knowledge, expertise and input from many different academic disciplines.”
Wolf is eager to pursue interaction and cooperation between the bioethics program and other organizations and departments on campus.
A large proportion of literature in bioethics focuses on individual decision-making, whereas legal, economic, and public policy issues have received less attention than they deserve, according to Wolf. He hopes to move the discipline and the program in that direction.
“I would like to expand the bioethics program to enhance the focus on agricultural and environmental policy,” he said. “But these are controversial issues. Public discussion of biotechnology and bioethics is often driven by fear of the unknown, and by people’s impression that biotechnology is strange or unnatural or dangerous.”
Establishing a dialogue among people who don’t understand these issues is one of Wolf’s goals. He plans to promote scientifically and ethically informed understanding of the risks and the promise of biotechnology.
“Hopefully this will help us develop ethically informed and sustainable agricultural policies,” he said. “An important role for any ethics program is to help us to evaluate and understand the activities we regularly engage in.
“Given Iowa State’s overwhelming strength in agricultural sciences,
biotechnology and related fields, where better than here to pursue a program
focused on ethical issues in agriculture and the environment?”
The summer months were full for Kristen Hessler, ISU’s bioethics outreach coordinator, who brought bioethics outreach to Iowa teachers, extension personnel, and faculty members from across the United States.
This summer, 11 teachers participated in Hessler’s online bioethics course,
designed to provide instruction on how to incorporate ethics discussions into
life-science classrooms and extension education. Participants study ethical
theories, discuss case studies, and learn about ethics pedagogy.
Since January 2002, more than 40 people have taken the eight-week, online course,
which is offered for one graduate credit or one staff development credit. This
summer was the fourth semester that the course was offered.
In addition to teaching her online course, Hessler spoke at several of the Office of Biotechnology’s Biotechnology Outreach Education Center’s (BOEC) summer workshops for teachers. Each summer, the BOEC offers workshops for Iowa life-sciences teachers to help them learn how to incorporate biotechnology discussions in their classrooms. Hessler’s presentations provided further assistance in helping participants learn how to include bioethics in their biotechnology curricula.
In June, Hessler taught the first-ever bioethics workshop for Iowa’s life-science teachers. Twenty middle- and high-school teachers attended the two-day workshop, which focused on learning how to develop students’ critical thinking, exploring ethical theory, and working on bioethics-related activities in groups. Participants worked with several bioethics case studies on stem cell research ethics, golden rice, and Enviropigs™.
Hessler spent a week in Minnesota in June at the annual Bioethics Institute. The Institute, developed at Iowa State University, was organized by Hessler and four other faculty members from five land-grant institutions that are members of a consortium to address the social, economic, and ethical issues in biotechnology. Participants at the Institute are life-sciences faculty members and extension personnel at colleges and universities from around the world. They learn how to incorporate ethics discussions in their classes or extension activities and work in small groups to develop a case study based on a bioethical issue.
“The objectives of the Institute are to encourage participants to learn about bioethics and bioethics pedagogy so that they can address ethical issues in their own fields with their students,” Hessler said.
At the Institute, Hessler discussed her work with a case study on vitamin A rice, her experiences with online bioethics education, bioethics pedagogy, and the ethics of genetic engineering.
The bioethics outreach program at Iowa State University is branching out to meet the needs of more people in and beyond Iowa.
The new Bioethics Outreach web site at www.bioethics.iastate.edu provides bioethics resources for the general public, educators, and extension personnel. Newsletters, case studies, PowerPoint presentations, and a listing of upcoming activities are all available on the site.
“The new bioethics outreach web site will help those who are new to bioethics, as well as those who have some experience with bioethics but want to expand on what they already know,” said Kristen Hessler, bioethics outreach coordinator.
The USDA has announced a new interim rule on permits required to move, import, or field test plants that are genetically engineered to produce industrial compounds. You are encouraged to comment on the interim rule, if you wish, by following the instructions given near the end of the USDA news release provided below. The interim rule, as published in the Federal Register, is available at www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html as Docket No. 03-038-1.
Bioethics in Brief
September 2003
Volume 5, Issue 3
Published four times per year
by the ISU Office of Biotechnology
and the Bioethics Program.
To subscribe, call 515-294-7356.
Editor: Dena Huisman
Bioethics Outreach Coordinator: Kristen Hessler
Iowa State University does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, age,
religion, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, marital status, disability,
or status as a U.S. Vietnam Era Veteran. Any persons having inquiries concerning
this may contact the Director of Affirmative Action, 318 Beardshear Hall, 515-294-7612.
| For Everyone | For the Classroom | For Extension | Activities | Contact Us | Search |
| Office of Biotechnology homepage | Search the Office of Biotechnology homepage |
Published by: Office
of Biotechnology, Bioethics Outreach
Ames, Iowa 50011-3260, (515) 294-9818, biotech@iastate.edu
Questions about the site? E-mail biotech@www.biotech.iastate.edu
Copyright © 2003, Iowa State University. All rights reserved.
Last Update 08/21/03
