Activity 3.2
1) What are the ethical issues in this case? There are a few ethical issues in this case, making genetically engineered food and distributing to the public without the publics knowledge is unethical. Another ethical issue is not knowing what side affects of the engineered food will do to humans in the long term. It is still not determined whether or not some of these GM foods will cause health problems in humans in the long run and should be tested like new drug have to be tested. It seems to me that the government is not as strict on GM foods like they are on new drugs being tested.
2) Do you think either group, pro-GM or anti-GM foods, is correct while the other group is wrong? If so, what reasoning do you give for supporting the position of one group over the other? Is it possible for both to be right? What ethical concepts help you decide? In my opinion I believe that the anti GM foods is correct in this argument because the effects of the GM foods has not been determined in humans yet. So it wrong for the pro GM group to say that the GM produced will cause no harm to humans. The facts have not been established and should not have been distributed to the public. On another note I believe that engineering food will cause the price of crops to go down but at the same time this will cause harm to the farmers that rely on their crops to bring income in for them and in the long run will cause damage to America's agricultural industry.
3) Is there any way to bridge the gap between these groups? If so, what would the advantages and disadvantages be? I believe that there is a way to bridge the gap between the two sides. If the two sides decide to stop making accusations at each other and let the facts speak for themselves I believe that the bridge between the gaps will close. In my opinion pro GM should do long and extensive tests that proves the benefits of GM foods and provide them to the public and to the anti GM foods to help dispel any myths about the
2) Do you think either group, pro-GM or anti-GM foods, is correct while the other group is wrong? If so, what reasoning do you give for supporting the position of one group over the other? Is it possible for both to be right? What ethical concepts help you decide? In my opinion I believe that the anti GM foods is correct in this argument because the effects of the GM foods has not been determined in humans yet. So it wrong for the pro GM group to say that the GM produced will cause no harm to humans. The facts have not been established and should not have been distributed to the public. On another note I believe that engineering food will cause the price of crops to go down but at the same time this will cause harm to the farmers that rely on their crops to bring income in for them and in the long run will cause damage to America's agricultural industry.
3) Is there any way to bridge the gap between these groups? If so, what would the advantages and disadvantages be? I believe that there is a way to bridge the gap between the two sides. If the two sides decide to stop making accusations at each other and let the facts speak for themselves I believe that the bridge between the gaps will close. In my opinion pro GM should do long and extensive tests that proves the benefits of GM foods and provide them to the public and to the anti GM foods to help dispel any myths about the