Introduction
The world population has been extensively growing, with a maximum annual growth rate of 2.1%, peaking in 1970 (Roser & Ortiz-Ospina, 2013). Ever since this year, the annual growth rate has declined. However, the population keeps on growing, and with this growth the demand for nutritious foods is rising. A controversial possible solution is the implementation of genetically modified crops in the agricultural food system. GM foods contain a minimum of one ingredient coming from a genetically altered composition (Funk & Kennedy, 2016). They are widely discussed, and some academics see the cultivation of genetically modified foods as “a huge global genetic experiment involving all living beings” (Maghari & Ardekani, 2011, p. 109). In contrast, law professor at Chicago University Omri Ben-Shahar views bioengineering as a promising innovation. According to Ben-Shahar, bioengineering should be endorsed by environmentalists, rather than obstructed, as he insists it entails solutions to environmental burdens such as land use, pesticide use and carbon emissions. In this essay, Ben-Shahar’s paper ‘The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food’ (2018), will be socially analysed.
References to the social dimension
Ben-Shahar acknowledges the fact that skepticism about genetic engineering is prevalent in society and that this forms an obstacle to the wide-scale implementation of the technique. He provides a clear conceptualisation of why, according to him, the topic of genetically modified organisms is so essential for the way we live in now as well as for sustaining this way of life in the future. He does so with the following argumentation. The author suggests that, besides yield decline, the social issues of not using GMOs in the long term include a host of environmental problems that come with the intensification of contemporary agriculture. According to the paper, GMOs have higher yields and are less vulnerable to pesticides. The author states that grain yields would increase by approximately 25%. This would eventually lead to a decrease in deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions (Ben-Shahar, 2018).
A missed opportunity / A lack of depth
The author explains some of the possible consequences of the use of GM foods. However, he does not sufficiently take the social dimension into account. An important social theory that the author leaves out, for example, is the Malthusian trap. Even though his viewpoint seems to be in line with the modernisation theory – he argues for innovation – he does not explicitly mention the case for the social benefits of GMOs. This is a missed opportunity, since addressing the urgent need to resolve societal problems such as malnutrition and poverty is an appeal to pathos that is widely used amongst advocates of GMOs, and could be considered to be quite effective for convincing opponents of the technique.
The implication of GM foods could present a solution to the world hunger problem, which is currently the biggest social problem of all. Currently, there is a lack nutritious food to feed the entire population. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that approximately 10.7% of the world population was suffering from chronic undernourishment in the year 2016 (FAO, 2018). With the estimated increase in yields with GM foods, it can be argued that this development of genetically modified organisms can pose a possible acceptable answer.
However, arguing that recently published scientific research “has the potential to help put a categorical end to these worries” (Ben-Shahar, 2018), the author does not seem to consider the relevance of people’s inherent principles that can play a role in their aversion to genetic engineering. Comstock (2010) distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic objections to the use of genetic manipulation. He suggests that ‘intrinsic objections allege that the process of making GMOs is objectionable in itself’, a statement that can be supported by a variety of arguments, such as the idea that ‘to engage in ag biotech is to play God … [and] to commodify life’ (Comstock, 2010). Indeed, Ben-Shahar (2018) does mention that “there is a dogmatic, almost religious, fervor in the conviction that “frankenfoods” are immoral”, and that “it seems that no quantum of evidence can budge this belief”, but he neglects this question. In contrast, the extrinsic objections are shaped by a fear of detrimental consequences of wide-scale adoption of GM organisms. Ben-Shahar does address these objections.
The author demonstrates an anthropocentric perspective on nature, enumerating the various environmental benefits of GM foods, but failing to acknowledge the complex views on people’s attitudes towards the relation between nature and society. A number of his remarks illustrate his predominantly realist view on the matter. For example, already in the introductory paragraph Ben-Shahar addresses the popular view that “the transfer of genes across species amounts to an “unnatural” global experiment in human beings”, and implicitly dismisses this. In addition, by stating that “GMO paranoia continues to rage”, he evokes in the reader a sense of humiliation and ignorance.
Besides all this, Ben-Shahar does not take into account the socio-economic aspect of monopolies that can arise in such a complex industry that is based on highly advanced life science.
The importance of a social science perspective
Because of the possible consequences of the implementation of GM foods, it is important to consider genetic modification from a social science perspective. The implication of GM foods will most likely change the economic supply. This is of course of interests to consumers. Independent of what these consequences might be, a possible effect on a population already requires a social science perspective.
Ben-Shahar’s explanation about the indifference or rather aversion towards GM foods by consumers indicates that consumers fall victim to the ‘deception’ of anti-GMO propaganda and non-GMO campaigns. This might be applicable considering the skepticism that generally exists towards scientific research. According to the report ‘The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides Over Food Science’, published in 2016 by Pew Research Center, 30% of the Americans think that scientific findings about GM foods are influenced by the desire of the researcher in question to help the industry (Funk & Kennedy, 2018).
This number illustrates that still a lot of skepticism exists around scientific research in general and especially towards the implication of science in daily life, such as food. It is important to include a social science perspective when reviewing public opinion about GMO http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/public-opinion-about-genetically-modified-foods-and-trust-in-scientists-connected-with-these-foods/
It is important to consider GMO from a social perspective consumers will be the ‘afzetmarkt’: if there is a general scare against GMO’s who will buy them people dont like what they don’t understand can’t only consider the scientific things, because it has a major effect on society He does not take into account the socio-economic aspect of monopolies that can arise in such a complex industry
Bibliography
Ben-Shahar, O. (2018, Feb 26). The Environmentalist Case In Favor Of GMO Food. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2018/02/26/the-environmentalist-case-in-favor-of-gmo-food/
Comstock, G. (2010). Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods. Food Ethics, 49-66.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2018). Food Security & Nutrition around the World. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2016). The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides Over Food Science. Pew Research Center.
Maghari, B. M., & Ardekani, A. M. (2011). Genetically Modified Foods and Social Concerns. Avicenna Journal of Medical Biotechnology, 109-117.
Roser, M., & Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2017). World Population Growth. Retrieved from Our World in Data: https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth