1

Megan Damele

Prof Wakeman

Thesis Essay

5 December 2017

Consumer Opposition to Genetic Modification: Fundamental Reasoning

Though the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved genetically modified

organism (GMO) appeared on grocery store shelves in 1994, consumers in the United States

have not yet accepted the technology as ethical. Though science, in the form of smartphones,

computers, and transportation, is inherently part of everyday American life, the majority of

consumers are either unsure about genetic modification in their food, or believe it is unsafe. As

Gary Comstock in Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods argues, there are reasons for this

resistance within the United States, which this paper will focus on. Consumers argue, as do Peter

Singer and Jim Mason in their 2006 book The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter, that

there is a lack of ethics when scientists ‘play God’. This lack of ethics comes from combining

characteristics ‘unnaturally’ into organisms of differing species, dubbed “transgenic

modification”. Genetic modification also compromises human intuition about purpose and

intention in that genetic modification, again, seems instinctively unnatural. And finally, there is

an aspect of psychological essentialism that, specifically in the context of food, is a negatively

charged concept. Though humans have biological and psychological tendencies against

transgenic modification, I will argue that these intuitions have been superseded by technological

advances. Not unlike the acceptance of any new technology, consumers should accept genetic
 2

modification as ethical. Therefore, current core ideals shared among consumers in America are

an inadequate argument against the ethicality of genetic modification.

Singer and Mason define the process of genetic modification as, “…a gene is inserted

from another organism, sometimes from an entirely different species, to confer a desired trait on

the plant or animal” (206). Commercially introduced in 1996, genetic modification in crops is

widespread and popular in the United States. The regulation of this sector of agriculture is

monitored by the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Common arguments

supporting genetic modification in crops include: pest resistance, long-term economic benefit,

nutrition, and fluctuating climate tolerance. Common arguments against the technology include:

corporate domination of the enterprise, trade conflicts, safety, intellectual property and ethical

rights.

The realm of genetic modification spans such a wide variety of ethical boundaries that

most cannot simply be ‘pro’ GMO. Maybe there are certain aspects one agrees with and other

aspects that one does not. For example, one could be against the political and corporate

dominating aspect of the growing field of genetic modification and at the same time support the

potential positive environmental implications. These are what I would consider extrinsic

objections and approvals. They are opinions that result from an action, (in this case the adoption

of genetic modification), that have an effect on the ecosystem, animals, or humans. Gary

Comstock, in “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods” cites that extrinsic objections include

opposing GMO technology because of possible results, i.e.

…decreased food security for women and children on subsistence farms in developing

countries, a growing gap between well-capitalized economies in the northern hemisphere

 3

and less capitalized peasant economies in the South, risks to the food security of future

generations, and the promotion of reductionistic and exploitative science. (53)

Comstock argues, as I will in this paper, that intrinsic reasoning includes the process and

idea of genetic modification in itself. Specifically, I will argue that the human intuition about

‘naturalness’, which leads people to reject genetic modification because of ‘pre-technology era’

instincts, ultimately leads consumers to oppose new technology. These ‘pre-technology’ instincts

are still affecting consumers’ mindset when it comes to buying food, but are not based on

scientific evidence, only emotion.

It’s a very common argument: ‘Genetic modification is just too unnatural, it’s like

scientists are trying to be God’. In this case the argument is not religious, but related to intrinsic

value, which makes either nature or God the sacred entity. The term ‘natural’ is similar to the

idea of ‘inherent value’, which is the idea that beings that contain inherent value are all of equal

worth and no being with inherent value is any less worthy than another. What quantifies it, what

is the line between what qualifies and what does not, and how much one organism contains are

all vague and unanswerable questions, sans debate.

Rejecting genetic modification on the grounds that it is ‘too unnatural’ would thus be

arguing that we should live our lives as naturally as possible. This is a highly romanticized

fantasy, and Gregory Pence, in his book, speaks of nature in this way,

Nature is here mystified, deified, and imbued with ultimate metaphysical value, shorn of

tetanus, rape, rabies, and then-normal mortality rate of 25 percent before adulthood. Such

a selective view of Nature, highly constructed through a rosy prism, blocks out anything

nasty, dirty, deathly, common, or ugly. (117)

 4

Humans adopt new technology because nature is so ugly. If we rejected genetic modification

because it is ‘too unnatural’, we would subsequently have to accept all things natural, given in

Pence’s example.

Jae-Hwan Han and R. Wes Harrison cite a study that concludes, “a consumer’s attitude

toward GM foods is a function of the strength with which a consumer holds beliefs” (702). It is

proven that how ‘natural’ a consumer believes something is links directly to their view of its

ethicality. But the consumer’s view on nature is very subjective. There are still images of red

barns and green pastures or roaming, Holstein cows on packages of butter and milk. Chickens

are still living the ‘American Dream’ and as free as eagles on cartons of eggs in the supermarket.

Most consumers are no longer connected to the process of how food is produced and have no

logical concept of ‘nature’ any longer. Because there is no definitive value on ‘natural’ it cannot

support an argument against the ethicality of genetic modification. In Peter Singer and Jim

Mason’s book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter, they argue that humans cannot

first argue that the domestication of plants and animals is right, and then argue that genetic

modification is wrong, because they are both interfering with the nature of species (211). One

could not argue that the breeding of plants and animals is a ‘safer’ or ‘slower’ method because it

can be argued that the interbreeding of plants and animals has made genetic mutations possible,

hence we have mutagenesis, “the act of inducing mutations within an organism’s genome,” (20.

Mutagenesis). And mutations occur within a genome at a rate faster than a human could trans-

genetically modify an organism, and with uncontrollable and unpredictable results.

My next point is one of human intuition about purpose and intention. The phrase ‘you are

what you eat’ shapes the argument against many foods. For example, vegetarians choose to be so

for a variety of reasons, one being that they don’t agree with the ethics of animal production as a
 5

means of food. Paul Thompson writes on this topic in his book, From Field to Fork: Food Ethics

for Everyone. He believes it scientifically valid that we are indeed ‘what we eat’ on a biophysical

level. He says,

The fact that food is taken into and becomes one’s body is certainly among the reasons

that some ethical vegetarians feel as strongly about their diets as they do…The sense of

revulsion people feel on learning that they have ingested some proscribed or filthy

substance… is not unique to vegetarians. (39)

Thompson is arguing that the feeling vegetarians develop when thinking of consuming meat is

not unlike the feeling consumers have when asked to eat a genetically modified organism.

Humans have long evolved to be wary of their food sources, hence why those who ate poisonous

berries have no descendants. We learn from each other’s mistakes, and those intuitions are still

with us today. For this reason, people react very skeptically to the idea of genetic modification in

general.

The widespread bias against genetic modification is scientifically unsupported.

Evolutionary dispositions regarding safety of food are irrelevant given the scientific technology

humans have today. Food scientists and microbiologists have advanced degrees in food safety

and are just as prestigiously educated and recognized as medical doctors and intellectually elite

members of the non-scientific community. On this topic Blancke says, “The cases of GMO

opposition and pseudoscience demonstrate that intuitions can even favor the distribution of

beliefs that are flatly contradicted by evidence” (415). Those who are unwilling to put their trust

in such food science professionals in regard to food should consider the trust they give their

doctor in terms of prescription medication. In fact, the FDA approved the first genetically
 6

modified drug in 1982 (Woolsey 1). Such medications are processed more than many genetically

modified crops. Blanke also argues that people don’t have predetermined notions to a negative

view of genetic modification, but culturally there is such a negatively represented view of

genetic modification and consumers are easy targets in areas where they lack formal education.

Emotion is an instinctive state of mind that influences arguably all human decisions.

Emotion can make the irrational seem rational and vice versa. In terms of food, emotion bundles

all the feelings previously mentioned, psychological essentialism and unnaturalness, and coats

those views with strong, irrational instincts. Blancke says on this subject,

In the case of GM food, feelings of disgust possibly arise because of psychological

essentialism by which people intuitively interpret gene modification as an unwarranted

and contaminating intervention into the essence of an organism, rendering the organism

impure and, therefore, no longer consumable. (416)

The same consumer disgust that is becoming the dominant feeling about genetic modification in

the United States was also one the feeling about many new technologies, such as chimera

research and synthetic biology. Opponents of genetic modification appeal to human emotion and

portray genetically modified crops and animals as strange-looking organisms, such as a tomato

with a fish tail and half-apple with a computer chip as its interior (Genetically Modified Food:

Right to Know). These appeals to emotion target the misinformed and/or uninformed consumer.

Many consumers see these advertisements and believe the food is toxic and untested. In

“Dissecting Bioethics”, Areleen Salles and Inmaculada De Melo-Martin make the argument that,

“They [opponents of appeals to disgust] also tend to believe that the reaction of disgust stems

from public ignorance and that giving the public more information about particular
 7

biotechnologies and their benefits will increase scientific understanding and public support”

(274).

“In a US survey, more than half of the respondents did not reject the idea that

tomatoes of the which the genome had been modified by insertion of catfish DNA would taste

like fish,” (Blancke 1). Consumers have a set idea about what food is, what food should taste like,

and how food is prepared. Anything that strays from this path is wrong, untrustworthy, and in

many cases simply not worth the risk. Jae-Hwan Han and R. Wes Harrison, in their paper titled,

Factors Influencing Urban Consumers’ Acceptance
 of Genetically Modified Foods say, “…a

consumer’s attitude toward GM foods is a function of the strength with which a consumer holds

beliefs (i.e., his/her subjective probability that GM foods are related to specific attributes) and

his/her positive or negative evaluation of each attribute” (702). This essentialism bias is seen in

the consumer when he/she continually preferences cisgenic organisms over transgenic organisms.

In fact, genetic modification is nothing new to humans. Zwart Hubb, in A Short History

of Food Ethics, says of Hippocrates, who lived around 460 B.C.E, that “What is provided by

nature must be actively cultivated by man…By subjecting oneself to a program of systematic

self-observation, self-inspection, and experiment, each and every individual may develop a moral

regime, a moral lifestyle…” (116). In other words, Hippocrates argues that humans have to play

an active role in cultivating our own food. There is no such thing as ‘natural’, therefore, because

humans have an inherent role in the production of their own sustenance. All food sources require

human interaction, especially if there is to be enough to feed all of us. Humans have been

breeding plants and animals to yield desirable characteristics since farming became a primary

lifestyle. Genetic modification, then, is not a new practice.

 8

Creating transgenic organisms is a more recent discovery however. But in the grand

scheme of evolution, it hardly seems out of place. First humans lived completely off the land;

they hunted, gathered, and fished. Then humans began cultivating their own food; they became

sedentary and created villages. Now, the villages are massive cities with interweaving roads,

schools, and factories, and something must be done to keep these masses of people fed. Hunting

and gathering is no longer an option, and methods of cultivating are rapidly being improved upon.

In the context of climate change, genetic modification may just be the next era of evolution.

There are many concerns about flooding and the upset of current farm practices, and genetic

modification has the potential to solve many of the uprising issues.

The idea of natural and unnatural are thus ambiguous and subjective ideas. The FDA

does not have set standards or regulate the term ‘natural’ on any food labels. Because the term is

similar to inherent worth in its ambiguity, it does not propose a sufficient argument against

genetic modification. Humans are very change-averse and new technologies are no exception to

this rule. Using examples of past technologies that were at first received skeptically and were,

over time, accepted as ethical, beneficial, and essential aspects of many communities, it is true

that genetic modification might be one such technology. Because consumer psychological

essentialism cannot provide an objective ethical boundary that genetic modification is violating,

it too is an insufficient argument. Emotion is a strong human motivator, and it is argued that

negative advertising of genetic modification has instilled a bias in the American consumer. This

bias is a result of misinformation and lack of education. Not unlike psychological essentialism

and naturalness, emotion is subjective and cannot provide a sufficient argument. It is possible

that educating consumers and subjecting them to the process of genetic modification, as any new

technology is introduced, that public opinion would sway the opposite direction. As in the last
 9

argument, the opposite situation can be argued as well. But because both situations provide a

framework for ethical approval and disproval alike, emotion is unable to provide a clear ethical

solution. We have certain morals based on culture and environment that are unexplainable in

science and irrational in many studies. Americans, for example, see nothing wrong with driving

across the country burning fossil fuel to protest an environmental hazard or visit a state park.

This is a culture mindset unexplainable by science. These subjective intrinsic values lead groups

of consumers to adversely react to a product, but because all consumers do not have the same

moral values, these values cannot completely reject such a technology as genetic modification. It

is because of these intrinsic reasons: ‘natural’ being a subjective term and emotions of disgust

being superseded by biotechnologies enhanced by public ignorance that genetic modification

cannot be proved unethical. Because consumers have accepted new medical technologies as

ethical, genetic modification should be considered ethical as well. Genetic engineering is only

the next phase in the scheme of evolution, and the planet may need the technology to survive the

growing climate issues.

 10

Works Cited

Blancke S, et al. “Fatal Attraction: The Intuitive Appeal of GMO Opposition.” Trends in Plant

Science, vol. 20, no. 7, 2015, pp. 414–8., doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2015.03.011.

“Genetically Modified Foods: A Brief Overview, The Risks, And The Benefits.” The Gillings

Sustainable Agriculture Project: A Gillings Innovative Laboratory, 15 May 2012,

gillingsproject.wordpress.com/genetically-modified-foods-a-brief-overview-the-risks-

and-the-benefits/.

“Genetically Modified Food: Right to Know?” Food Recall Monitor, Cozen O' Connor, 28 June

2012, www.foodrecallmonitor.com/2012/06/28/genetically-modified-food-right-to-know/.

“GMO Basics.” GMO Answers, Council for Biotechnology Information, 15 May 2017,

gmoanswers.com/gmo-basics.

Han, Jae-Hwan, and R. Wes Harrison. “Factors Influencing Urban Consumers Acceptance of

Genetically Modified Foods.” Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 29, no. 4, 2007, pp.

700–719., doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2007.00382.x.

Ho, Mae-Wan, et al. “The Unholy Alliance". Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and

Application, vol. 7, 2017, pp. 549–560.

Melo-Martin, Inmaculada De, and Arleen Salles. “Disgust in Bioethics.” Cambridge Quarterly

of Healthcare Ethics, vol. 21, 2012, pp. 267–280., doi:10.1017/S0963180111000776.

Pence, Gregory E. Designer Food: Mutant Harvest or Breadbasket of the World? Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Print.

 11

Thompson, Paul B. From Field to Fork: Food Ethics for Everyone. Oxford, Oxford University

Press, 2015.

Woolsey, GL. “GMO Timeline: A History of Genetically Modified Foods.” Rosebud Magazine -

Rosebud Magazine Hydroponics Lifestyle Growing And Entertainment!,

www.rosebudmag.com/truth-squad/gmo-timeline-a-history-of-genetically-modified-

foods.

Zwart, Hub. “A Short History of Food Ethics.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental

Ethics, vol. 12, no. 2, 2000, pp. 113–126., doi:10.1023/A:1009530412679.

“20. Mutagenesis.” 20. Mutagenesis - PlantBreeding,

plantbreeding.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=20._Mutagenesis.